apophenia Wrote:I see you didn't answer my question about Shaktism. The problems of the past alludes to the fact that no matter what attributes we posit, some smartass has a proof somewhere showing that attribute as being a problem. The only way out of that box is to posit a god with no tangible attributes, but then why call that god? Why not just, 'existence'? Or reality? What, in your view, is the minimum attribute that a god must have in order to qualify as a god, as opposed to 'nature' or some other non-god existential quantity.
Oh, sorry! I should have clarified that I briefly researched Shaktism and I responded to it by implying it's in the category of 'world religions'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the belief is that the god visited the society 22 000 years ago. Well, we've all seen the flaws with Jesus so I wasn't going to bother trying to disprove an incarnate god that lived 11 x 2 000 years ago. Or was there something that I missed about this belief?
Your suggestions for the nature of a plausible god are valid in my eyes (i.e. existence or reality). Like I said, in order to make sense of the scale and its true meaning we have to drop the conventional meaning of 'god'.
I guess the more I think about it, the concept of 'god' is the thing where all that is material and even immaterial (if such things exist) came from. 'god' is the origin of all that is. The reason why I would give it the label of 'god' is because it was the thing that gave rise to the tangible that we call reality/nature. But reality/nature can't explain why it exists as opposed to not existing. It can only show us how it functions after coming into existence.
Quote:The NFL theorem is applicable because it demonstrates that when you average the net moment over a purely random set of phase spaces, the net moment is zero. Likewise, if your set of Gods is truly only constrained by the possible, you have a net average of all characteristics being zero (0) -- thus the result of following the logic of possibility in determining the likely characteristic of a Deist god constructed this way is that the probability of this god having any specific attribute is zero (0); it's as described impressionistically above, if you let go of ALL IDEAS from your experience, the most probable god is a cipher, having no qualities which differentiate it from it not existing. The reason you are able to shape this Deist god in the way you are, imho, is because you're using hidden assumptions, assumptions based on what has been said or thought about god before, and not really opening yourself up to the truly possible. YMMV.
Wow... that's very profound. I'll have to ponder these arguments you've brought up.
How do you suggest I open myself up to what's truly possible?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
