Is God Rational?

[Musika]

Designed by the Sugar Plum Fairy against the objections of the Tooth Fairy who was angry about the rising costs of keeping his operation going

Incorrect.
The myth that froot loops bear any relationship to fruit is as persistent as the myth that the different colours bear different flavors.

 

[Write4U]

Its not inadequate as a mathematical representation (after all, it represents the most rigorous explanation afforded by mathematics).

Precisely, the mathematical functions enfolded in a fruit loop, create its form, flavor, crunchyness, absorbing qualities, i.e. the unfolded state as a fruit loop.

However, philosophical problems begin to arise when it is suggested this molecular explanation is the most accurate or complete, all encompassing explanation of a fruit loop (due to the problems of defining a thing as a sum of its parts

What is the philosophical problem of calling a 'thing" a "fruit loop"? It's a trade name recognized by all as a food (cereal) consisting of circular, fruity tasting things.
Why do we have patents and trade secrets, the exact formulas used in the ratio of the chemical constituents of the product?

or even in scenarios where the purposes of intense mathematical inquiry are irrelevant,

Oh, but the experience of hunger is caused by a sub-conscious chemical process within the body.

eg. when you are hungry and just eat the froot loops).

Or pick out those particular fruitloops which produce the greatest subjective chemical emotion of satisfaction, even when you are not hungry.

These problems explode to an exponential level when it is suggested that mathematics represents the top most ontological language for mapping reality (since it requires that we ignore vast swathes of reality in order to establish the validity of such a dogmatic proposition).

Can you give an example of a swath of reality which is required to be ignored?

Ontology
(introduced ca. 1606) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.[1] Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. A very simple definition of ontologyis that it is the examination of what is meant, in context, by the word 'thing'

In this case the fruit loop

In modern terms, the formal study of reality itself is in the domain of the physical sciences, while the study of personal "reality" is left to psychology. The idea of ontology comes from a time before people could make these distinctions and yet were beginning to investigate the bigger questions ("first things") within the emerging context of secular thought, without religious forms and ideas.

To me this sounds that there is a true "objective" reality (forms, patterns), independent of an observer and a "subjective" form of reality experienced by the observer dependent on his/her point of observation.

The objective form of an object contains the mathematical patterns of the object's properties, its essence, both enfolded as potentials and unfolded as physical reality.

The subjective images produced by the brain are mathematical constructs formed by the mirror neural system, a sophisticated form of measurement and computation of what these measurements represent.

The subjective emotion experienced by the observer (such as hunger), comes from sub-conscious production of chemical (adrenal, hormonal, endorphinal) processes triggered by the brain's analyzing it's subjective information (it's best guess) which ultimately is still a physical mathematical process.

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

p.s. I have tested the link and it seems to work just fine.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here .... that a rational god would instantly smite any irrational thought/desire within the universe .... and thus froot loops would not even have the possibility of existing in the rational universe of such a rational God?

I thought I was entirely clear and yes certainly there is not enough smite for my liking.

Smite the fruit loops and all who worship them.

If God had wanted us to eat friut loops they would be growing on trees just like sausages or cheese.

They are fraudulent fruit... no doubt offered up by satan and smuggled the fruit loops into the garden of eden using the serpent.

The apple was not the forbidden fruit... it was the fruit loops that were forbidden because they were the only thing the serpent could carry.

Now do you understand why they have a hole in the middle...of course so obvious when it is pointed out.. fruit loops are the only thing a serpent can carry...

Oh there are big snakes that carry donuts but they are ok cause donuts come from donut trees.

Its always the simple things we overlook.

Thats the point.

Really how could a serpent carry an apple? yet no one stops to ask that obvious question.

The serpent never carried any apples it was fruit loops.

Again it all makes sense when I point it out now so you can thank me for letting you in on that one because it is not common knowledge at all.

Why do you think many snakes have colourful bands ... Its a sign of the serpent and his evil ways set as reminders to God to fix holes in the garden wall to prevent the serpents smuggling in fruit loops under satans direction.

And all of that story is in the bible laid out in detail but hidden in symbolism.

Where it says man shall have dominion over the animals that really is saying you should not trust a serpent carrying fruit loops..now do you get the hidden meaning.. well of course it is obvious when its pointed out...only non believers cant understand.. neat eh..

Well most of the fruit loop story was edited and removed upon the insistence of one of the major breakfast cereal companies, who shall remain nameless, who sort to profit from this forbidden imposter fruit.

It was rumored that satan was the CEO of that company and no doubt you know exactly who I mean.

Why are there no square fruit loops?
Did you ever think about that?

Well the fact there are no square fruit loops is clearly proof that God is rational because the serpent would not have been able to carry square fruit loops and then God would not have a way to temp Eve which he could not do directly and thats why there was a satan.. God had to tempt her so he could do his thing...smite her.

And as you must know that was part of his plan.

Rather rational cause it provides a real opportunity for God to smite everyone from then until now and heck that is what a God is supposed to do.

Really who will obey God if it were not for him being able to smite?

Indeed more smite please.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

Incorrect.
The myth that froot loops bear any relationship to fruit is as persistent as the myth that the different colours bear different flavors.

Fruit Loops
About the product

• Product of USA. Pack of 3.
• Good Source Of Fiber & Made With Whole Grain.
• Natural Fruit Flavors Sweetened Multi Grain Cereal.
• Contains Wheat Ingredients, Corn Used In This Product May Contain Traces Of Soybeans.
• Ingredients: Sugar, corn flour blend whole grain yellow corn flour, degerminated yellow corn flour, wheat flour, whole grain oat flour, oat fiber, modified food starch, soluble corn fiber, contains 2% or less of hydrogenated vegetable oil coconut, soybean and/or cottonseed, salt, natural flavor, red 40, turmeric extract color, yellow 6, blue 1, annatto extract color BHT for freshness.

 

[Bowser]

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

I enjoyed the video. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Write4U]

deleted

 

[kx000]

Alpha is a beghingingless ending, Omega begins without an ending. Like a phoenix.

 

[spidergoat]

An objective logical and rational value can certainly be universal. I think science has proven that.
Objective Values fall in the domain of mathematics, not the domain of religion or mythology. they deal with local subjective values..

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. I mean objective in the sense of being common to most people, not mathematically so.

 

[Write4U]

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. I mean objective in the sense of being common to most people, not mathematically so.

Ok, I understand......it's a Tulpa.

Now that I'm typing. I might as well refere to an earlier post where I compared the metaphor "God" to an abstract form of mathematical imperatives, a pseudo-intelligence, (somewhat similar to an IA), but not sentient or motivated by any desire or purpose.

In the absence of any other demonstrable options, assigning an abstract purely mathematical system seems as good as any. There is no credible counter claim, IMO.

And that would satisfy the OP question. Yes , an abstract God could be rational, but not sentient.

 

[Bowser]

And that would satisfy the OP question. Yes , an abstract God could be rational, but not sentient.

Would you have faith in such a god?

 

[spidergoat]

Ok, I understand......it's a Tulpa.

No

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And that would satisfy the OP question. Yes , an abstract God could be rational, but not sentient.

Like many other humans before, who invent a God, you also now invent a God that suits you.

Your action certainly establishes a degree of rationality as to the rationality of your approach to the subject but shows no rationality in attempting to invent the subject matter.

My problem is I find fiction, not only the fiction of religion but all manners of fiction, an irritation and a reminder that so many humans are happy and content to occupy their minds upon fiction.

Is there so little of interest in the universe that requires the invention of fiction?

My earlier post was a rare indulgence for me to explore fiction and I must say for the purpose of humour I can see its place.

I like George Carlin over all others because he guides folk back to reality via his humour and the particular appeal for me of his humour is although he employs fiction his referrences that makes me laugh is his cold presentation of reality.

God is a human invention and as such a fictional character given, as you demonstrate, the characteristics you select as suitable for a God and merely reflecting your preference.

You seem to want a rational God one presumably attentive to maths and so you have invented such a God.

I want a God who is kind and so if I were to invent one he would be kind.

Some want a vengeful God so of course that is the God they invent.

But these Gods are all inventions to create a preferred fictional character which is fine for those who seek to escape the beauty and wonder of the universe ... but such a shame to waste mind space on any fiction when there are so many important things to learn about.

Alex

 

[Bowser]

But these Gods are all inventions to create a preferred fictional character which is fine for those who seek to escape the beauty and wonder of the universe ... but such a shame to waste mind space on any fiction when there are so many important things to learn about.

Did you watch the video posted by Write4U? It would seem that we all live a fiction: "What is reality when everyone enjoys their own version."

 

[Tiassa]

Is it possible that God is irrational because life has always been such?

The problem with shoebox godlings is that they are human creations.

As with Peterson, the problem is that reality and rationality presumed in the rhetorical framework are intended to suit the individual aesthetics. God is irrational compared to our finite minds that cannot comprehend infinite reality; that is why we invent godlings and redemptionist faery-tale holy scriptures.

Anyway, so ... who are you trying to pill?

 

[Musika]

The problem with shoebox godlings is that they are human creations.

As with Peterson, the problem is that reality and rationality presumed in the rhetorical framework are intended to suit the individual aesthetics. God is irrational compared to our finite minds that cannot comprehend infinite reality; that is why we invent godlings and redemptionist faery-tale holy scriptures.

Anyway, so ... who are you trying to pill?

However, to think the infinite is necessarily incompatible with sentience represents yet another type of rhetoric/shoebox thinking.
If the stats on pharmaceuticals in the US is anything to go by, sometimes we like to pill ourselves.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Did you watch the video posted by Write4U?

I dont think so???
Which one?
What was its point?

It would seem that we all live a fiction: "What is reality when everyone enjoys their own version.

I try not to live in a fictional reality yet others go to great effort to indulge fiction.

And they say, as you have or similar, oh man is a spiritual creature...

What does that even mean...as George Carlin would say..it means the m.....f.....s are totally f....d up... those crazy m...f....s what the f... are they thinking.☺

He shows there is a place for profanity.

Do you watch his stuff?


The words I wrote were inspired after I realised my tarot card reading mate really absolutely believes the tarot cards predict the future.
He lives in a world where that is a reality...not pretend but real...it took me a long time to realise that to him it is real...not a play thing but as real as the Sun and the Moon.

And same for religious folk their reality can be that there was a garden of eden and a talking serpent and the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old, that there was a flood that was impossible.that a man has one less rib so testable but no lets play make believe..for them the make believe is real and that is as real to them as my shoes are to me.

And those mormons they believe a fraudster was loaned a golden bible from an angle ( which he conveniently returned and so preventef scrutiny) which he interpreted by putting a hat over his head with a magic stone in it...they believe that...

I just dislike fiction it is after all just lies what else can you say..lies told for the indugence of escapism.

I hear on the radio (you know your book shows) folk discussing the traits of a character in a book of fiction as though they are real...I dont get it they hold this made up character as close or closer than a real person.

Who gives a ratz about how some made up character feels or thinks..again it is an indulgence of fantacy rather than to engage real things...go look at David Attenbough and see something real and discuss traits of animals...real stuff...not BS.

They must not get out and have to invent people to talk about.

But no folk prefer thinking about ghosts, gods, goblins, demons, a made up murder, a mythical hero on mythical missions, talking animals, space ships that turn intergalactic travel into a day trip and of course monsters and catastrophe. ..

Waste of mind space.

None of it is real.

Have these folk ever gone for walk in the bush, gone skin diving or sat under a dark sky and observe reality.

Want characters? go to the pub, the club, the shopping center and talk to real people.
The real stories I hear from folk I meet certainly beat the made up crap from Hollywood.

Do those writers even talk to real people or do they draw experience from books of fiction.

And so God can be rational or vengeful or kind just like any other character that is made up by humans but no more real than any other invented character.

Who was it here I think quoted to me something Sherlock Holmes said (about deduction) ...they quote a fictional character as if he were real.

Its a fantacy there is no Sherlock Holmes he is a fantacy of an author. ..as George would say "you crazy people what every were you thinking oh dear oh dear you silly sausages"


Alex

 

[Bowser]

I dont think so???
Which one?
What was its point?

You should watch it. It is really interesting.

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

As for the remainder of your post, well said, but I haven't the motivation to respond to the whole thing.

Anyway, so ... who are you trying to pill?

Absolutely no one. I'm toying with ideas at this time. Don't be offended.

 

[Write4U]

Would you have faith in such a god?

To a point I would respect a mathematical god. There is always the uncertainty factor at the smallest levels.

But it certainly would not require worship or prayer. Might as well worship and pray to your computer.

 

[Bowser]

To a point I would respect a mathematical god. There is always the uncertainty factor at the smallest levels.

But it certainly would not require worship or prayer. Might as well worship and pray to your computer.

Some things can't be reduced to numbers though, like when my dog gives me a lick on the cheek. Rationality has its place, but it also has its limits, imo.

 

[Write4U]

You seem to want a rational God one presumably attentive to maths and so you have invented such a God.

I'm sorry I did not make myself clearer. I am an atheist and I don't believe in a god at all. I believe in the natural mathematical laws (relationships between physical/mathematical values) that guide events. That's why my equation Potential = God. Don't take that as a proposition that god exists. Perhaps a better equation is (God = Potential). It turns the equation around.

The post was intended to propose that what people have named "God" is a metaphor for the apparently rational way things happen in recurring patterns of behaviors and functions.
But a mathematically functioning universe would produce exactly the same results as are assigned to a sentient god. Something like; "a rose by any other name......"

IMO, the term God is not only superfluous but in the absence of a sentient wholeness (brain) a sentient God cannot exist.