Happy Atheist Forum

Yup, Sophus was right.  The term apatheist makes sense as a descriptor for yours truly.  I changed my profile to reflect my new self-awareness.

I am also what I would call a hard agnostic, as I assert that not only the fact but also the plausibility of God's existence are not only unknown but unknowable.  But my hard agnosticism leads instantly to apatheism, because I deem it wasteful of time and energy to focus any attention or base any action on what can never be known.  Stated positively, my maxim would be, All relevance rests in the knowable.  I think apatheism has a positive role to play in society, by channeling resources away from the unknowable, so those resources won't be wasted.  Better by far that those resources be employed to bring earthly benefit to earthly creatures.  A great example would be all the money placed in the collection plates of all those churches out there.  In most cases, only about a tenth of that money goes to the practical good of society or the planet.  The remaining ninety percent is utterly wasted on the irrelevant.  Apatheism zeroes in on that fact and calls it out as important to be considered.

So now I'm wondering if anyone else on the board self-identifies as apatheist.  I could look at profiles, but a lot of us have fanciful ones, like, Leprechaunless.  So I thought I'd just ask.  Plus I'll add an invitation to talk about your apatheism, if you would like to.

Yep, I independently ('cause I'm sure someone else had to have come up with it besides just me) coined the term apatheist and have used it for years to describe myself sometimes. I also self-identify as a naturalist. Naturalist describes my world view better, but apatheist describes my view on how I approach religions and religious people and how I want them to approach me. In essence, I don't care if people want to be religious or not (because I currently don't think humans are out of their religious diapers yet...we just haven't evolved socially enough to abandon religion, much as I'd like us to do so), just so long as religious beliefs aren't forced on me.

There's more to it, and I suppose how deeply I feel about this depends on my mood, or situation from day to day, but that's it in brief.

I would consider myself to be, among other things, an apatheist, but not towards religion. I think religion should be actively combatted due to social and ethical justification. Deism vs. Atheism on the other hand, is in the realm of the unknowable so yes, I am an apatheist in that sense.

Quote from: "EssejSllim"I think religion should be actively combatted due to social and ethical justification.

The best way to do that, I think, would be to promote the repeal of the tax break for churches.  The Wiccans wouldn't care, as they don't have churches, but I doubt very many of us are concerned about the Wiccans any way.

QuoteDeism vs. Atheism on the other hand, is in the realm of the unknowable so yes, I am an apatheist in that sense.

Me too.  Deism is the only theological framework I'm apatheist toward.  Judaism, Christianity, Islam - toward them, I'm hard atheist.  Those frameworks I claim as false.  They're utter nonsense.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I am also what I would call a hard agnostic, as I assert that not only the fact but also the plausibility of God's existence are not only unknown but unknowable.  But my hard agnosticism leads instantly to apatheism, because I deem it wasteful of time and energy to focus any attention or base any action on what can never be known.  Stated positively, my maxim would be, All relevance rests in the knowable.  I think apatheism has a positive role to play in society, by channeling resources away from the unknowable, so those resources won't be wasted.  Better by far that those resources be employed to bring earthly benefit to earthly creatures.  A great example would be all the money placed in the collection plates of all those churches out there.  In most cases, only about a tenth of that money goes to the practical good of society or the planet.  The remaining ninety percent is utterly wasted on the irrelevant.  Apatheism zeroes in on that fact and calls it out as important to be considered.

The search for knowledge is never wasteful, only one lesson is learned in victory but a thousand are learned in defeat. Only by questioning things can we evolve our understanding of the universe. If we just accept things as they are we stagnate, we can never know if something is impossible or not as we only have a finite understanding of the universe.

Take cancer research for example. I'm sure that people have been trying to find a cure for cancer since cancer was first observed, and we've advanced a lot since then but cancer still claims the lives of too many people each year. Even if cancer is never fully eradicated, it can not be said that the research and resources put into it were a waste.

I would consider it highly unlikely for the people at SETI to receive a transmission that proves the existence of extra terrestrial intelligences, but who knows what radio signals would be missed if no one was listening for them?

Philosophy is important, maybe there are more important things, but the world would be a lesser place if there was no one to ponder the great questions.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"The search for knowledge is never wasteful, only one lesson is learned in victory but a thousand are learned in defeat. Only by questioning things can we evolve our understanding of the universe. If we just accept things as they are we stagnate, we can never know if something is impossible or not as we only have a finite understanding of the universe.

I strongly agree but only so long as what we seek to know can be known.  God cannot be known, if by God we mean, that which, not of nature, is nature's author.  It's the not of nature attribute that makes God forever unknowable, since our bioliogical senses and our technological sensing devices are all of nature, and thus are limited to nature as their domain of functionality.  
 
I notice you self-identify as eclectic pagan.  You may very well, then, define God, god, or gods, in some manner that excludes the not of nature attribute, or that bypasses the question of knowability by rejecting any claim for objective existence.  Which of those three words do you employ as denoting something meaningful to you, and how do you define that word, or those words?  Obviously I'll be analysing your definition from the perspective of (1) naturalism versus supernaturalism and (2) objective versus subjective existence.

Some pagans view the gods as psychological archetypes.  These pagans would deny that their gods in a literal sense created the universe, and also would deny that their gods have objective existence, although the existence claimed for these gods would be universal to Homo sapiens as a factor in personal fantasy, dreams, hallucinations, storytelling, and tribal myth, all of which are subjective phenomena, but all of which can be studied in something approaching a scientific manner by psychologists and anthropologists.
 

QuoteTake cancer research for example. I'm sure that people have been trying to find a cure for cancer since cancer was first observed, and we've advanced a lot since then but cancer still claims the lives of too many people each year. Even if cancer is never fully eradicated, it can not be said that the research and resources put into it were a waste.

I actually find it hard to imagine that cancer, a hundred years from now, will still in any sense be mysterious, barring nuclear or other cataclysm to set science backward.  I strongly support cancer research, as I think anyone sane and competent must.

QuoteI would consider it highly unlikely for the people at SETI to receive a transmission that proves the existence of extra terrestrial intelligences, but who knows what radio signals would be missed if no one was listening for them?

SETI seeks to know what at least hypothetically can be known.  I strongly support SETI, though I can understand how someone else sane and competent might not, out of apathy toward the question under study.

QuotePhilosophy is important, maybe there are more important things, but the world would be a lesser place if there was no one to ponder the great questions.

Philosophy is such a broad topic that generalizing around it can be hazardous.  Many of my posts on this message board delve into epistemology, a branch of philosophy, while other posts delve into the philosophy of science.  I also delve into metaphysics, but only to the extent that I explain my apathy toward it, which I base on epistemology.  I incidentally consider morality to be a metaphysical topic, since it can't be a physical one, as the material world is one of force, not idea, and morality is a domain of ideas.  Mathematics and formulational logic are also domains of ideas, and thus metaphysical, but they are special cases, as their questions can be answered definitively, due to the tautological nature of their propositions, and the answers they provide can be applied to the useful analysis of physical domains as well as to the design of useful tools and methods.

Creator gods are only one sort of god, there are many more.

As far as I'm concerned if there ever was a creator god it's probably not concerned with us. In that sense you could say that I'm an agnostic deist, but I do believe that there are gods or rather a god that exists as a force or forces that may or may not be sentient.

I've had some pretty spiritual experiences in my life, for example I've sat under trees and felt the energies of the Earth flow around and within me, but I don't claim to know anything about the nature of the universe. All I have are my perceptions, but this doesn't mean that it is unknowable. Only that I do not currently know it. I keep my ear to the ground just in case the universe wishes to reveal its mysteries to me.

As for non-creator gods: I think of them as personifications of forces, like Neil Gaiman's Endless. They exist both as the phenomena they represent and as the concepts that we've envisioned them as.

There are also spirits which are also gods in a sense, and may or may not be related to the above.

What if a god, for whatever reason, decided to reveal itself to us, could we still not know it?

What if we, in say a thousand years, discover a way to leave our universe and discover a greater universe in which there is a guy who looks like Santa who is making little snow globe universes and introduces himself as God, do we still not know?

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Creator gods are only one sort of god, there are many more.

OK.  That jibes with polytheim, which typically jibes with paganism.

QuoteAs far as I'm concerned if there ever was a creator god it's probably not concerned with us. In that sense you could say that I'm an agnostic deist, but I do believe that there are gods or rather a god that exists as a force or forces that may or may not be sentient.

Supernatural forces?  I'll presume so, especially in light of some of your later comments.

QuoteI've had some pretty spiritual experiences in my life, for example I've sat under trees and felt the energies of the Earth flow around and within me, but I don't claim to know anything about the nature of the universe. All I have are my perceptions, but this doesn't mean that it is unknowable. Only that I do not currently know it. I keep my ear to the ground just in case the universe wishes to reveal its mysteries to me.

Some of what you describe would be classified by me as intuition, which can take a variety of forms.  I view intuition as a potent source of hypotheses.  I merely require that those hypotheses be tested by logical empiricism.

QuoteThere are also spirits which are also gods in a sense, and may or may not be related to the above.

Elementals, for example?

QuoteWhat if a god, for whatever reason, decided to reveal itself to us, could we still not know it?

We would never be able to know it was a god.  The communication would have to either be matter, energy, or direct neurological manipulation, all three of which could be accomplished by the super-science of extra-terrestrials or time travelers - my point being, the communicating entity could be lying.  Absent a way to rule out deceitfulness, any claim that can't be verified must be assumed deceitful if outlandish or astonishing.  If I (as I now am) had been Moses, I would have assumed Yahweh was an extra-terrestrial or a time traveler.
 

QuoteWhat if we, in say a thousand years, discover a way to leave our universe and discover a greater universe in which there is a guy who looks like Santa who is making little snow globe universes and introduces himself as God, do we still not know?

It could always be a trick.  How would we rule that out?  Trickery, if impossible to rule out, must be assumed, if the claim is outlandish or astonishing.

How is a super advanced time traveller or alien any less outlandish than a god?

I can understand what you're saying, if I saw a guy with pointy ears I'd think he was a human with a genetic anomaly before I would think that he was an elf or a vulcan, but if it was proved that he wasn't in fact human then which would be least outlandish elf or vulcan?

At some point describing something as godlike would be the least outlandish, what then... or are all outlandish things to always be disbelieved? If so what is outlandish exactly, are there different levels of outlandish such as the elf/vulcan thing, how much and what kind of evidence would you need to believe in an outlandish thing?

Also, and most importantly, how do you define knowledge?

If religion stayed away from me, I'd be an apatheist too. You see, I only care as long as it affects me personally by for instance being an annoyance.

Also what about pantheism? The idea that the universe is a god.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Also what about pantheism? The idea that the universe is a god.

We already have a word for the Universe. Begins with a Uni and ends with a verse.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"How is a super advanced time traveller or alien any less outlandish than a god?

A god, being supernatural. is literally outlandish in the sense of being external to the land - all land, every land, everywhere.  A supernatural being belongs nowhere, is at home nowhere, as even space itself is natural.

To enter the supernatural we must exit the universe.  Nothing is more literally outlandish than that.

QuoteI can understand what you're saying, if I saw a guy with pointy ears I'd think he was a human with a genetic anomaly before I would think that he was an elf or a vulcan, but if it was proved that he wasn't in fact human then which would be least outlandish elf or vulcan?

Vulcan.  By far.  But still a thrilling discovery!  How I yearn for the day we first encounter extra-terrestrial life!

QuoteAt some point describing something as godlike would be the least outlandish, what then... or are all outlandish things to always be disbelieved?

All supernatural things are to be disbelieved, though their concepts can be taken as beautiful and employed as ideals by which to live one's life.  If leprechauns as a concept inspire me to live my life with a twinkling eye and a crooked grin, a spring in my step and a joke on my tongue, then the concept has added to my happiness, and I am wise to value it.  But to think I might actually find one at the end of a rainbow - if rainbows had ends - would be silly and make me prone to a lifetime of disappointment.

Vulcans, on the other hand, while of course fictional, might one day be discovered, albeit most likely under a different name, and with a much different history than was described on Star Trek - unless Gene Roddenbery was privy to secrets!

QuoteIf so what is outlandish exactly, are there different levels of outlandish such as the elf/vulcan thing, how much and what kind of evidence would you need to believe in an outlandish thing?

If a Vulcan were discovered and biologically studied, we presumably could quickly determine it wasn't human, nor even terrestrial.  Where it came from would be an open question, but that it didn't come from here, presumably would be clear.

The problem with the supernatural is precisely that it can't be studied.  Only its alleged effects on the natural can be studied.  Whether the cause of those effects was supernatural would forever be unanswerable, unless definitively disproven by finding the natural cause.

QuoteAlso, and most importantly, how do you define knowledge?

Knowledge is any proposition whose probability of being accurate has been determined by logical empiricism to be one hundred percent.  If I saw you punch your wall, then I know you punched your wall.  If I didn't see you, but someone else did, and I find traces of your flesh on the wall, and bruises on your knuckles, and traces of paint in the bruises, and the paint matches that on the wall - then the probability that you punched the wall is close enough to one hundred percent for me to accept that you punched it, but, strictly speaking, I don't know that you punched it.  Nevertheless, a strong surmise is sufficient for most purposes.

Logical empiricism cannot assess the accuracy of any statement regarding the supernatural, beyond tautological ones, such as, "The supernatural isn't natural."  What logical empiricism cannot assess must forever be doubted.  Yet its beauty may nevertheless inspire.  We merely need to distinguish sharply between beauty and truth.

Why must a god be supernatural? the ancient Greeks believed that their gods lived on  Mount Olympus, and that if they were bold enough they could go visit them.

I've not once thought of gods as being supernatural, but rather as being one with nature. As creatures brought about by natural forces, our the natural forces themselves given life.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"To enter the supernatural we must exit the universe.  Nothing is more literally outlandish than that.

If you exit the universe then the place that you are in currently becomes part of the universe by definition. Once observed the supernatural ceases to be supernatural, and becomes a part of the observable universe.

Also there are lots of things in science that are understood only by observing their effects, and the last time I checked that was actually a huge part of science in general.

Take gravity for example!

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Why must a god be supernatural?

Well, first, to be natural, something must either be matter or energy or else the result of matter or energy.  Space is the result of matter and energy.  Motion is likewise.  Gravity is what happens when matter comes near enough to other matter.

If something claimed to be a god, yet was matter or energy or the result of matter or energy, would you entertain the notion that the thing might be stating an honest and accurate fact?  If so, then OK, for you a god can be natural.  But what would make it a god?  Its relationship to man?

QuoteThe ancient Greeks believed that their gods lived on  Mount Olympus, and that if they were bold enough they could go visit them.

Got a source for that?  A link, hopefully?

QuoteI've not once thought of gods as being supernatural, but rather as being one with nature. As creatures brought about by natural forces, our the natural forces themselves given life.

Given life by whom?  Or by what?

If you were saying the gods were psychological archetypes I'd be willing to nod my head at that.  There really do seem to be certain symbols that pop up in most if not all cultures.  These symbols inform myths, but also dreams, personal fantasies, and hallucinations.  When the myths, dreams, personal fantasies, or hallucinatons are beautiful, they inspire, and when they're ugly, they still inspire, just in the opposite direction.  When they inspire actions of earthly benefit to earthly creatures, they are good, since earthly benefit is the definition of good.  But they are never true.  If only we could admire the beautiful and laud the good without having to claim them as true!

QuoteIf you exit the universe then the place that you are in currently becomes part of the universe by definition.

Drat.  I wish hackenslash were still around.  He would totally agree with you!

QuoteOnce observed the supernatural ceases to be supernatural, and becomes a part of the observable universe.

If observed then it wasn't supernatural to begin with.  The supernatural can't be observed.  Our biological senses and technological instruments can only respond to the natural.

QuoteAlso there are lots of things in science that are understood only by observing their effects, and the last time I checked that was actually a huge part of science in general.

Take gravity for example!

See above regarding gravity.  Other examples would be dark matter and dark energy, whatever the heck they really are, which may well be neither matter nor energy.  But if you said to me* that gravity, or dark matter, or dark energy were gods, I would ask you why you said that.  What would make them gods in your eyes, if indeed in your eyes they were gods?

* I know you didn't say this.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Why must a god be supernatural?

Well, first, to be natural, something must either be matter or energy or else the result of matter or energy.  Space is the result of matter and energy.  Motion is likewise.  Gravity is what happens when matter comes near enough to other matter.

If something claimed to be a god, yet was matter or energy or the result of matter or energy, would you entertain the notion that the thing might be stating an honest and accurate fact?  If so, then OK, for you a god can be natural.  But what would make it a god?  Its relationship to man?

What wouldn't make it a god? I think we can both agree that Thor is a god, he comes from Asgard which is supernatural as it is not in midgard and he's really powerful and controls thunder and stuff. We might have differeing opinions on whether he exists, or if he is real... but again I think we can both agree he's a god.

That being said why wouldn't Zeus be a god? Zeus, accroding to Greek mythology lives on Mount Olympus.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Olympians

A physical god residing on Mount Olympus which is a place that you could actually visit, if you were so inclined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Olympus

Quote from: "Byronazriel"What wouldn't make it a god? I think we can both agree that Thor is a god, he comes from Asgard which is supernatural as it is not in midgard and he's really powerful and controls thunder and stuff. We might have differeing opinions on whether he exists, or if he is real... but again I think we can both agree he's a god.

Yes.  He's a god because people worshipped him as such, and because he was of the race of beings who caused the Earth to be made in its present form.

So let me ask you, then - If some ancient being of power, made of matter and energy, was proven to have taken part in the making of Earth in its present form, and was worshipped by humans once they learned of him, would you consider him a god?

I wouldn't.  I would find him irresistibly interesting.  I would do everything I could to be able to interact with him.  But I would never view him as a god.  I would never worship him, or pray to him, or obey him.  For he would not have his dwelling at the center of my being.  He would not be my higher self.

You know, I had never followed that thought to its logical conclusion before.  It isn't transcendence that makes a god, for me.  It is immanence.

QuoteThat being said why wouldn't Zeus be a god? Zeus, accroding to Greek mythology lives on Mount Olympus.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Olympians

A physical god residing on Mount Olympus which is a place that you could actually visit, if you were so inclined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Olympus

Yes, but previously you had said this:

Quote from: "Byronazriel"The ancient Greeks believed that their gods lived on Mount Olympus, and that if they were bold enough they could go visit them.

Do you have any evidence of the Greeks actually believing that if they climbed Mount Olympus they could meet their gods face to face?

Albeit with regard to the Deist's God I remain agnostic and apathetic, I've decided there's something more important that I stand for.  With regard to theistic creeds, I am neither agnostic nor apathetic, as I declare them false and I declare them dangerous.  Accordingly, I have changed my worldview designation to Anticreed.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Accordingly, I have changed my worldview designation to Anticreed.

And now I've changed it again to AntiAbrahamist, after pondering a reaction by Magic Pudding.  I'm really not AntiHindu or AntiAsatru.  Those creeds are logically consistent, internally, and their adherents don't seek global hegemony for their creeds.

QuoteA god, being supernatural. is literally outlandish in the sense of being external to the land - all land, every land, everywhere.  A supernatural being belongs nowhere, is at home nowhere, as even space itself is natural.

I don't think you really grasp your own conceptual ideas.. Right here, you have just stated that a GOD exists "Nowhere" or in a magical place of nowhere.. Nowhere doesn't exist and can not be a place of existence or a "SOMEWHERE". I think you are fishing for some level of ignorance in order to create the idea a god can exist in the state and place of non-existence so you don't have to be bound to explaining how the container to said supposed theoretical deity was created so itself can exist and have a place to exist like everything else does. It seems like you are tying to get around that obvious quagmire in order to suggest something could create existence from a place and state of non-existence. Sorry, but that is far more outlandish than the concept of a time and dimensional traveling alien species!.

And for the record.. It is impossible for any mind or deity to be a literal creator because all minds can only be observers, processors, and manipulators of what already exists. And that is because they are equally bound to requiring all those things in order to exist themselves. Hence you could say I created this post, but in reality I could only creatively manipulate what already exists into this very post you see before you. I require information, material physicality, substance, matter, energy, ability, awareness, observability, and ability to process of all of the above to which I, nore any other conscious entity could ever design and create into existence. Even a deity is slave to require something as simple as information in order to even know that itself exists.  And this all includes a place to exist in. It's like try replying to this post without material physicality, matter, energy, or replying from a state of nothing, being made of nothing, or non-existence.

Gods are logical fallacies because all things can be considered "creators" whether or not they are sentient or simply grains of sand that blow in the wind to create sand dunes. So either all things are GODS or there are no such things as GODS. And lets not forget that GOD is merely subjective in regards to the fact that its only a label of entitlement to which is strictly reliant on something to label it as such. Hence what is power or a GOD without someone to worship it and call it as such?

Quote from: "TheJackel"I don't think you really grasp your own conceptual ideas.. Right here, you have just stated that a GOD exists "Nowhere" or in a magical place of nowhere.. Nowhere doesn't exist and can not be a place of existence or a "SOMEWHERE".

I never claimed that nowhere exists, nor that it is a place of any kind, nor that it is somewhere.  I merely claimed that if God exists, it exists outside of space.  I guess the word outside was ill chosen.  I meant it in the sense of aside from, rather than external to - as in, "She has no interests outside of work."  Interests outside of work would be interests aside from work, independent of it, such that, work would be irrelevant to these interests.  Similarly, if God exists, it exists outside of space, meaning that space would be irrelevant to God's existence.  This would mean that the existence of the Creator is different in kind from the existence of creatures, since space is fundamental to the existence of creatures.  I'm not claiming that such a mode of existence is real or even can be, but merely that I don't know if it is or if it can be.  For me to claim otherwise would be to claim that the limits of my own experience equate to the limits of reality, that reality cannot transcend what I have experienced.  Since reality is the source of my experience, rather than vice versa, I would argue that while my experience cannot transcend reality, reality could at least theoretically transcend my experience.  This concept is reminiscent of the karate master who mops up the dojo with his top student and then says, "I taught you everything you know - not everything I know."

Quoteit exists outside of space.

Same thing as claiming something exists in a place of nowhere :cool:

However, here is a funny thing to ponder. Who created the container to this theoretical existence, or it's existence. The funny thing about reality is that no matter what reality you find yourself contained in, it could never fully be explained in terms of origins. A supposed god would be sitting in the same quagmire we find ourselves in . But the simple answer is no creation to existence because non-existence doesn't exist and can not exist, literally. The opposite is simply impossible!  So the answer is much simpler than GOD, or creation.

Quote from: "TheJackel"If you want to suggest the possibility of higher entities in other dimensional capacities that could have constructed or even accidentally created our observable universe, I wouldn't have a problem with that possibility.

What do you mean by "other dimensional capacities"?  A different space from the space you and I exist in?  Or do you mean the same space that you and I exist in, but this space would be more complex than height, width, and depth, it would have added dimensions we can't see, and somehow, in those dimensions, higher entities might exist?  I could go with either of those possibilities as applying to the alleged existence of an alleged Creator.  Either of those would be unknowable to me, and so I would remain agnostic toward any Creator.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "TheJackel"If you want to suggest the possibility of higher entities in other dimensional capacities that could have constructed or even accidentally created our observable universe, I wouldn't have a problem with that possibility.

What do you mean by "other dimensional capacities"?  A different space from the space you and I exist in?  Or do you mean the same space that you and I exist in, but this space would be more complex than height, width, and depth, it would have added dimensions we can't see, and somehow, in those dimensions, higher entities might exist?  I could go with either of those possibilities as applying to the alleged existence of an alleged Creator.  Either of those would be unknowable to me, and so I would remain agnostic toward any Creator.

The point is, there has to be capacity, or the volume to which contains all other things within it, and where all things in that volume are made from the same substance of that volume (the human body is 99.7% space for example). Space is considered an infinite volume because it can't exist in a literal negative capacity, nor can anything exist without it. There is no "outside of space" because that is literally impossible. And that is especially true in regards to claiming an entity would exist in X-place. Added dimensions would still have height weight and depth. It's like the infinite hotel analogy with infinite number of rooms. We basically occupy a specific room under the concept of multi-universes to where there are universes outside our own observable universe if you believe in the multi-universe concept.  For example:

4D<--- 3D<--- 2D<--- 1D<--- 0D ---> 1D---> 2D---> 3D---> 4D

here we have two universes next to each other to where both can be considered infinite. 0D = ground state or the fabric between both dimensional universes with positive capacity in different directions. 0D in my example above is actually represented as 1 dimensional object within string theory as the very base of the fabric of existence. What makes both infinite is the concept to where each dimension is represented as a number with an infinite number of other numbers between each dimension.

1D.xxxxxxxx to 2D.xxxxxxxxxxx 3D.xxxxxxxxxx 4D.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So we can say that the first dimension is as infinitely large as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.. But no dimension or form of existence could have - dimensional value or capacity. Hence there can not exist a -2 dimensional capacity or space. And for anything to exist, it must have the capacity to exist and exist in.

So a GOD can not be a -2D object for example.. It must have dimensional complexity, substance, and a place to exist. It is bound to the rules of existence as much as we are because things can not exist with attributes defined by non-existence, nothing, non, or no. So non-material would mean not made of anything and is thus suggested to be made of nothing, and this is just as impossible as saying something could exist outside of the capacity to exist.

Infinity is probably the most difficult concept to understand, and I don't even fully grasp it..... YET!

1) Where is a GOD located?
2) What contains him?
3) What is a god made of?
4) How complex is a GOD over zero base complexity or ground state?

Quote from: "TheJackel"Added dimensions would still have height weight and depth. It's like the infinite hotel analogy with infinite number of rooms. We basically occupy a specific room under the concept of multi-universes to where there are universes outside our own observable universe if you believe in the multi-universe concept.  For example:

4D<--- 3D<--- 2D<--- 1D<--- 0D ---> 1D---> 2D---> 3D---> 4D

here we have two universes next to each other to where both can be considered infinite. 0D = ground state or the fabric between both dimensional universes with positive capacity in different directions.

Thus in a multiverse model of reality, God would exist in the Godverse, defined as the universe where God exists, a different universe from the one where you and I exist.  OK.  I can buy that as a working assumption for a hypothetical God.  Being in a different universe, God would be unknowable to me, and so I remain agnostic toward it.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Added dimensions would still have height weight and depth. It's like the infinite hotel analogy with infinite number of rooms. We basically occupy a specific room under the concept of multi-universes to where there are universes outside our own observable universe if you believe in the multi-universe concept.  For example:

4D<--- 3D<--- 2D<--- 1D<--- 0D ---> 1D---> 2D---> 3D---> 4D

here we have two universes next to each other to where both can be considered infinite. 0D = ground state or the fabric between both dimensional universes with positive capacity in different directions.

Thus in a multiverse model of reality, God would exist in the Godverse, defined as the universe where God exists, a different universe from the one where you and I exist.  OK.  I can buy that as a working assumption for a hypothetical God.  Being in a different universe, God would be unknowable to me, and so I remain agnostic toward it.

Yes, it's just a matter of opinion at that point whether or not you consider said something or entity as a GOD.. Under these rules anything can be labeled as a God, and that includes you since for all you know something could be worshiping you as such. :)

Quote from: "TheJackel"Hence, are we just a elementary particle in a much larger universe or reality? Is our Universe merely a living cell in a much larger living organism within an much larger coe-existing universe? After all, we are 99.7 percent empty space ourselves..

Our universe as a living cell would require at the highest macro level a complex order that isn't there, but our universe as a molecule, with galaxies as atoms and stars as electrons, is an image I've always intuitively liked.  Not that we can do anything with it.  It's just fun.

And that brings me to a point I'd like to make.  Religion can be engaged in for the fun of it.  The Abrahamists want religion to be a deadly serious matter worth killing and dying for, but it doesn't have to be that.  I happen to enjoy the Norse myths.  Accordingly, I could do Asatru or Odinism as a kind of role playing game, and if I did, I suspect I could get all sorts of good things out of it, even beyond sheer enjoyment.  The whole thing would become real enough to be edifying on a variety of levels.  I could enjoy taking part in a Superman religion.  Practitioners would wish Superman was real but would know he isn't, and in the wish would find meaning, in their quest to manifest the Superman ideal, using their non-super powers for the survival of all.

Religion without theism is very doable, and definately not unheard of. Take Jediism for example, though I suppose some of them might deify the Force it tends to be more spiritual/philisophical.

A working religion could very well be centred on Superman, if it hasn't already.