(July 29, 2019 at 6:43 am)Tom Fearnley Wrote: sorry I guess I'm just confused by this it's new to me.

Not to worry! 

It's confusing to me, and I've been working on it a long time. I enjoy these discussions because they prompt me to make things clearer to myself. 

Just for now, I'll summarize what seems important to me on this subject.

God is not intelligent in the way that people are intelligent. Because in people, intelligence involves learning, connecting, solving unknowns, etc. 

God doesn't know in the way that people do. When we say "I know X," there are two things -- me and X. The knower and the known are two. 

God is not a material thing. He is not like Bigfoot, whom you could find if you knew where to look (supposedly). He is not something to be counted as one, in addition to the world. God and the world do not make two. 

This is SO FAR from our normal thinking about things that it takes work to grok it. And I don't think anybody has to get it to have a long and happy life -- just that if you're asking the questions you might as well look at the best answers. Nor am I saying it's something you should believe. I don't know how nearly it approaches the truth. But I also think it is very beautiful and I don't regret working on it.

"God is not intelligent in the way that people are intelligent. Because in people, intelligence involves learning, connecting, solving unknowns, etc. " But God still exhibits a type of intelligence, one that does not need to be modified in anyway? Maybe not in the *same* way but still sharing some similarities?


So you're saying God IS everything: But wouldn't that include that he is intelligent, in the traditional sense of the word, as well?


I still don't see if God doesn't know then how does he create?

---

https://www.thoughtco.com/examples-of-th...ter-608349 : I guess my question is what's the difference between "non-matter" and "immaterial" / "not material"?

Based off of this if God was just things like memories and thoughts he'd lack the ability to actually interact in the world. Would he not need a matter-based component? Hence God is a logical contradiction because a purely immaterial intelligence wouldn't have the ability of interaction?

(July 29, 2019 at 7:04 am)Tom Fearnley Wrote: "God is not intelligent in the way that people are intelligent. Because in people, intelligence involves learning, connecting, solving unknowns, etc. " But God still exhibits a type of intelligence, one that does not need to be modified in anyway? Maybe not in the *same* way but still sharing some similarities?


So you're saying God IS everything: But wouldn't that include that he is intelligent, in the traditional sense of the word, as well?


I still don't see if God doesn't know then how does he create?

---

https://www.thoughtco.com/examples-of-th...ter-608349 : I guess my question is what's the difference between "non-matter" and "immaterial" / "not material"?

Based off of this if God was just things like memories and thoughts he'd lack the ability to actually interact in the world. Would he not need a matter-based component? Hence God is a logical contradiction because a purely immaterial intelligence wouldn't have the ability of interaction?

Fascinating questions, and I look forward to pondering them soon (though I'm not confident I'll have any answers). It's a pleasure to meet someone genuinely curious about this stuff.

Now it's my bedtime, though, so I'll wish you the best until tomorrow.

Thanks. I gtg for the rest of the day too.

There is absolutely nothing logical about god.

Even if an all powerful intelligence -were- in some way contradictory, that wouldn’t make gods contradictory. Just that one particular god or type of gods.

(July 29, 2019 at 5:57 am)Tom Fearnley Wrote: comet: Well I'm confused as to what immaterial means then. How do you know it's possible for something immaterial to be intelligent?

If you don’t know what immaterial means, how can you know it is impossible for the immaterial to be intelligent?

---

(July 29, 2019 at 5:33 am)Amarok Wrote: So a  bunch of special made up stuff theists use to get out of admitting their god is nonsense. Theology is science fiction .

Where is the pretense of science?  Where is a admission that it is fiction?

The difference between theology and fiction is theology is ultimately about the most brutal domination, fiction about faintest suggestion.

---

(July 29, 2019 at 2:53 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 2:09 am)Tom Fearnley Wrote: To the best of my knowledge there are no immaterial things, such as energy waves, that exhibit intelligence.

Energy waves are not immaterial. There is nothing yet that has been observed that is immaterial.

Are messenger particles material?

(July 29, 2019 at 6:43 am)Tom Fearnley Wrote: I'm not trolling. I promise you that. Sorry if you've got that impression. So people who are describing energy waves as immaterial are theists?

Not necessarily theists, but they are using the word in an imprecise way. The sense in which they are using it is 'no physical substance', but the way they are using it seems to imply that they are just talking about being energy and not mass...but energy is physical, that's what is causing confusion. I don't blame them, English has a limited vocabulary for things that are composed of energy in space/time that is not matter that isn't also used to describe spirits. I don't think anyone should get hung up on the use of the word 'immaterial' in this instance. We know what was meant.

---

Quantum Foam seems to check a lot of the boxes for the God that Belaqua is describing.

god (or gods) is simply a human(s) mental construct. Each person can see it as being as logical or illogical as they want based on what they think/believe/need. This applies to everything Belaqua is stating also, even though he might not think so.

(July 29, 2019 at 5:57 am)Tom Fearnley Wrote: comet: Well I'm confused as to what immaterial means then. How do you know it's possible for something immaterial to be intelligent?

I don't know so hence the word "possible".  and as a point of fact nothing is really "material" anyway.  Its only our perception that makes an object seem "material".  for example, a proton is not like marble.  Its more like bubble on the surface of water. 

so in a literal sense we are immaterial and we have intelligent ... well ... sorta.