Reading the mind of God

Devans99

This post is about how similar all intelligences should be to each other. My belief is that man, the higher animals, any future AI, aliens and God all share a basically similar kind of intelligence. The axiom ‘great minds thing alike’ applies. We should be able, on simple matters anyway, to read the mind of God by putting ourselves in his shoes.

Logic And Math

Logic and maths are surely universal to all advanced intelligence. Animals have mathematical capabilities:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150826-the-animals-that-can-count

God would need to be an advanced astro-physician if he did engineer the Big Bang deliberately to produce a life supporting universe - he would know all about general relativity etc…

Right And Wrong

Right and wrong are simple mathematical relationships. Right is what is net pleasurable, wrong is what is net painful. All beings try to maximise net pleasure for themselves or across their group, which involves being good or right. Being right involves doing what is right/pleasurable in the long term - long>short so we try to avoid being mislead by short term pleasure.

God is timeless so is the ultimate in long term, IE he should be extremely righteous.

Or alternatively: if God ever meets an evil god, he is punished whatever his orientation. But if our God is good and he meets another good god, then our God gets rewarded. So our God (and in fact everything intelligent) is compelled to good by this argument.

Loneness And Boredom

Being the first and on his own, he would no doubt suffer from boredom. Loneliness? I am not sure whether it is in the nature of a singleton to be lonely, but it might manifest itself through long conversations with the divine self. Boredom and/or loneness would lead to the creation of toys; starting with simple inanimate toys and moving onto more complex toys; the ultimate toy being the universe.

Occam’s Razor

All intelligent beings should strive for solutions with the minimum amount of complexity required to satisfy the requirements. When we look at the universe, we should try to put ourselves in God’s shoes: what is the simplest effective universe design that meets the requirements? Implementablity is a function of complexity so Occam’s Razor applies much more that usual if we live in a designed universe; God would strive to keep the design simple.

I think the design we have (the Big Bang) is effective and simple - it required only an initial action. It does not need micro managing in any way. There are some ‘features’ like black holes that are not great but it's difficult to see how to avoid them; gravity is required for life so black holes are unavoidable.

It is possible that God would have included extended longevity on his list of design requirements for the universe. The simplest, Occam’s Razor approach to this is circular time. That of course requires 4D spacetime. With 4D space time, there is the intriguing possibility of Closed Timeline Curves (CTCs):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

These are loops in spacetime that start where they end. So you travel forwards in time but end up back where you started in time. They are caused by warped spacetime which is caused by intense gravity. That is maybe why we have so much matter in the universe - needed to warp spacetime into a CTC.

The reason God made the universe so big was I think so that we don’t get nuked by supernovas of nearby star systems. I can only conclude that God is playing a giant game of Conway’s Game of Life with the universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

The stars are the energy sources for life, the planets are the living surfaces for live. When I put myself in God’s shoes, I can’t quite see a better design for the universe than the one we have.

I think if science would ever accept the need for an intelligent first cause, then the enhanced utility of Occam’s Razor would be most useful in fields like cosmology etc...

TheMadFool

When I put myself in God’s shoes, I can’t quite see a better design for the universe than the one we have. — Devans99

A better design is possible. We can think of heaven can't we? You'd have to prove that heaven is impossible. Can you do that? I'd like to know. Thanks.

Devans99

A better design is possible. We can think of heaven can't we? Yoi'd have to prove that heaven is impossible. Can you do that? I'd like to know. Thanks. — TheMadFool

Can't be happy with people. Can't be happy without people. Therefore heaven (as commonly defined) is technically not possible.

Putting myself in God's shoes for a second; heaven is tricky. How exactly do you implement the transmigration of the soul for example? How do you ensure a perfect world for all the different types of beings in the universe? So maybe do something simpler first (like the circular time thing I mentioned if that's possible) and then have a long think about if anything better is possible, IE a retrofit of heaven and hell at a later stage.

TheMadFool

Can't be happy with people. Can't be happy without people. Therefore heaven (as commonly defined) is technically not possible.

Putting myself in God's shoes for a second; heaven is tricky. How exactly do you implement the transmigration of the soul for example? How do you ensure a perfect world for all the different types of beings in the universe? So maybe do something simpler first (like the circular time thing I mentioned if that's possible) and then have a long think about if anything better is possible, IE a retrofit of heaven and hell at a later stage. — Devans99

In simple logical terms I don't see the necessary contradiction that would make heaven an impossibility in human terms.

Would you agree with me that the average person in 2019 CE is living a better life than one in 2019 BCE? You would right? This is because humans have this vision of utopia/heaven if you will. It was, is, and will be a guide to all human planning. Its success is debatable but in very general terms it is being achieved. So, if humans, presumably of lesser intellect than God, can do so much why not God, omnipotent and omniscient as he is?

Devans99

Would you agree with me that the average person in 2019 CE is living a better life than one in 2019 BCE? You would right? This is because humans have this vision of utopia/heaven if you will. It was, is, and will be a guide to all human planning. Its success is debatable but in very general terms it is being achieved — TheMadFool

I would agree with that. Putting myself in God's shoes again, I would think that God would expect all intelligent civilisations to strive for and mostly achieve utopia with time, so maybe he would think heaven is not a requirement?

I do not believe God is omnipotent or omniscient. I have a more realistic view of God as a being that is not magical and has to abide by common sense laws. I believe for example that it is probable that God used some sort of device like a gravity bomb to cause the Big Bang. It should all be explainable in terms of science and logic IMO without the need to introduce unscientific concepts like omnipotent or omniscient.

Schzophr

If you believe God in the realistic sense, please throw away the bible and unname God so that we can define creator scientifically, or try.

I imagine there was the original species or species selection; this is the only realistic God I believe in.

The universe probably happened after a Planck Length of other events, a creator type species may be just one of many in big existential conundrum.

Yes there may be systems like heaven and hell - it seems logical - but God is outweighed by science!

Devans99

If you believe God in the realistic sense, please throw away the bible and unname God so that we can define creator scientifically, or try. — Schzophr

I did not mention the bible. I am not christian.

I imagine there was the original species or species selection; this is the only realistic God I believe in. — Schzophr

I think God is more likely a single creature: causality absolutely requires a first cause and the first cause must be able to cause and effect without being effected; IE self-driven and probably intelligent but definitely in the singular. The first cause has to be timeless (so beyond causality - not needing to be cause itself) so I'm not sure how evolution of a species fits in.

Yes there may be systems like heaven and hell - it seems logical - but God is outweighed by science! — Schzophr

I think you can have God and science combined. If I had to choose just one, I'd choose science, but I don't have to make that choice, science and logic point to God IMO.

TheMadFool

I would agree with that. Putting myself in God's shoes again, I would think that God would expect all intelligent civilisations to strive for and mostly achieve utopia with time, so maybe he would think heaven is not a requirement?

I do not believe God is omnipotent or omniscient. I have a more realistic view of God as a being that is not magical and has to abide by common sense laws. I believe for example that it is probable that God used some sort of device like a gravity bomb to cause the Big Bang. It should all be explainable in terms of science and logic IMO without the need to introduce unscientific concepts like omnipotent or omniscient — Devans99

Omnipotence and omniscience aren't supernatural concepts. If x can create a universe then surely, even if only in a relative sense, x must be in possession of vast knowledge and power.

Also, if mere humans can imagine utopia/heaven and work towards it despite severe constraints then how is it that God, able to create entire universes, can't do it? What limits God, makes him incapable of creating a paradise?

Devans99

Omnipotence and omniscience aren't supernatural concepts. If x can create a universe then surely, even if only in a relative sense, x must be in possession of vast knowledge and power. — TheMadFool

Vast knowledge and power are distinct from omnipotence and omniscience, which I maintain are magical concepts. Both are impossible anyway by the standard definitions: omniscience - knowing even thyself is impossible. Omnipotence - can God create a rock larger than he could lift?

Also, if mere humans can imagine utopia/heaven and work towards it despite severe constraints then how is it that God, able to create entire universes, can't do it? What limits God, makes him incapable of creating a paradise? — TheMadFool

God knows that we will create a utopia eventually so he does not need to do that himself and indeed he is incapable of doing so: there are an estimated 10^24 star systems in the universe; probably all populated by aliens all with slightly different utopian requirements. How is God meant to provide utopia for all these beings? Thats impossible, especially bearing in mind only about 10^10 years since the Big Bang - not enough time to visit all of the star systems.

I think you are expecting too much from God - you are expecting him to wave a magic wand and all our problems go away. He has no magic wand and he does not know in a specific sense of our problems. He created the universe. It is hospitable to life. It might even support life after death. That is and would be a miracle. I think to expect anymore of God is unreasonable.

TheMadFool

I can’t quite see a better design for the universe than the one we have. — Devans99

Heaven is an old and human concept.

Why can't heaven obtain?

Devans99

↪TheMadFool

I think perfection of lifestyle (maximum pleasure in the broadest sense of the word) is something that all beings including God would naturally be interested in. So the concept of a perfect place (heaven) might fall out of consideration of that. So I'd imagine God will have thought of heaven but not seen any obvious way to achieve it apart from the long road of evolution leading to intelligence and advanced civilisations leading eventually to utopian societies.

TheMadFool

I think perfection of lifestyle (maximum pleasure in the broadest sense of the word) is something that all beings including God would naturally be interested in. So the concept of a perfect place (heaven) might fall out of consideration of that. So I'd imagine God will have thought of heaven but not seen any obvious way to achieve it apart from the long road of evolution leading to intelligence and advanced civilisations leading eventually to utopian societies. — Devans99

You say you can't conceive of a better design for the universe than we have but then you do - utopia/heaven.

I'll accept your position only if you can prove to me that this design, of having to evolve from apes, that too being contingent on the extinction of dinosaurs by an asteroid, then inventing machines that are threatening our existence through climate change, basically taking one step forward and two steps back, all of the mess that we're in, is necessary to realize utopia/heaven.

Can you do that?

Devans99

↪TheMadFool

I don't believe God is smart enough to design advanced life from scratch - its too complex - there are 100 billion neurons in the brain we don't even understand how any of them work - we are too complicated to design directly. So we had to be evolved rather than designed. The universe can be seen then as a giant laboratory for engineering life through brute force, random process of evolution. The dinosaurs were too dumb and cold blooded so they lost the game of evolution.

It looks like we are winning the game of evolution - I think it is two steps forward and one back but then I'm an optimist. But maybe the machines will be the winners when when invent AI? Or maybe we will coexist happily with AI?

tim wood

I think God is more likely a single creature: — Devans99

This is akin to the problem of the Loch Ness monster. The idea is that if there's a monster, then there must be more than one (else the monster is approaching his 1,000th birthday!). I.e., there must have been a momma and poppa monster, and no doubt monster siblings and likely cousins, & etc.

And so with your creature. But the real problem with all of your posts - most of them, anyway - is that you fail to acknowledge your real problem, that of origins. Let's for the sake of argument suppose there really is a fourteen headed dragon who created the universe and all and everything in it, and that the dragon has any power you care to allow it. There's still the question of where it came from, & etc.

Until you acknowledge that problem, none of your intermediary monsters are of any interest.

Shamshir

My belief is that man, the higher animals, any future AI, aliens and God all share a basically similar kind of intelligence. — Devans99

All creatures share a similar kind of intelligence; that would be intelligence.
Man and a cornstalk? Similar kind of intelligence.

Discrepancies are borne upon further deconstruction.

Schzophr

↪Devans99

Then you're saying God was the first species and it moderates the later species; since when did the child not have greater potential? This is improbable. It's likely there was the first event, and it came in multiples, or multiple species were born, perhaps of the forces which govern afterlife.

Devans99

And so with your creature. But the real problem with all of your posts - most of them, anyway - is that you fail to acknowledge your real problem, that of origins. Let's for the sake of argument suppose there really is a fourteen headed dragon who created the universe and all and everything in it, and that the dragon has any power you care to allow it. There's still the question of where it came from, & etc. — tim wood

God did not come from anywhere - he is a permanent fixture of reality - uncreated / no cause / outside time.

Time cannot just recede into a past eternity - that leads to infinite regresses which are impossible. Nothing can exist permanently in infinite time. But can't get something from nothing, so something must have existed permanently - we need something to exist permanently and it can't exist permanently in time. So the only answer is to have something permanent outside of time. This is what I call God. You are correct that I have no idea of his actual form. A fourteen headed dragon cannot be completely ruled out.

Man and a cornstalk? Similar kind of intelligence. — Shamshir

I said the higher animals have a similar intelligence to man. Plants only have a very limited form of intelligence.

Then you're saying God was the first species and it moderates the later species; since when did the child not have greater potential? This is improbable. It's likely there was the first event, and it came in multiples, or multiple species were born, perhaps of the forces which govern afterlife. — Schzophr

I think God is an uncreated singleton. He has nothing to do with bisexual reproduction so the ideas of species/family/sex are all inapplicable. It is merely traditional to refer to God as 'He'. Returning to the primer mover / first cause cosmological arguments; something has to move of its own accord and create everything else. Something has to create time. To be a first cause is to be a singleton. There can be only one first cause.

Shamshir

I said the higher animals have a similar intelligence to man. Plants only have a very limited form of intelligence. — Devans99

And I said plants have a similar intelligence to man, as all intelligent lifeforms do, despite a difference in faculties.

If you want to go off on a tangent about intellectual superiority, I could argue plants are more intelligent than humans, being hermaphroditic and capable of photosynthesis; making them highly self-sustainable.
Which would incline towards the notion that man's intelligence is limited - despite it's purported wide area of operation.

But I've a question for you.
How do you segregate animals in to higher and lower ranks, when there's plenty of humans that mismatch human intelligence, but are deemed humans nonetheless?

Devans99

↪Shamshir

I am not sure what to say when you claim plants have similar intelligence to man. Signs of intelligence include communication, society, technology, none of which plants demonstrate.

I think it is actually hard to segregate the animals; even seemingly simple animals like ants are self aware (they pass the mirror test) so I think we have to show respect for all animals small and high.

In an ideal world, humans would be capable of photosynthesis; we could take our energy from the sun directly. Maybe our skin can be genetically reengineered to be solar panels?

Shamshir

Signs of intelligence include communication, society, technology, none of which plants demonstrate. — Devans99

Those aren't signs of intelligence. Those are human character traits.
A calculator doesn't communicate, socialize or create anything - nonetheless it is intelligent.

But let's look over your claim.
Communication? Seasonal foreknowledge.
Society? Forests and lawns.
Technology? Mutation and adaptability.

I think it is actually hard to segregate the animals; even seemingly simple animals like ants are self aware (they pass the mirror test) so I think we have to show respect for all animals small and high. — Devans99

:up:

In an ideal world, humans would be capable of photosynthesis; we could take our energy from the sun directly. Maybe our skin can be genetically reengineered to be solar panels? — Devans99

You don't need an ideal world. Sungazing shows that people possess a latent form of photosynthesis.

Deleted User

I am not sure what to say when you claim plants have similar intelligence to man. Signs of intelligence include communication, society, technology, none of which plants demonstrate. — Devans99

Actually plants clearly do communication - just google that and only focus on the scientific research. They do colloborate which would be a simple form of society. I don't see why technology need be a sign of intelligence. The higher mammals other than us tend not to, dolphins don't - except on rare occasions. Plants are not motile in the same ways animals are, so tool use is precludes, but again look up Plant intelligence again focusing just on the scientific research. There is larger and larger amounts of evidence each year that decision-making, intelligence and awareness are likely traits of plants. We just have a 'it must be a lot like us' bias that has kept us from considering this. Not that long ago scientists thought animals were not conscious, while laymen of varoius kinds knew they were.

Schzophr

You've figured out an alternate way of living that involves the mass slaughter of animals.

You meddled with the greater scheme of things which would have been successful otherwise - you exempt yourself from this scheme\ using the alternative.

The alternative you used was evil, it was malificent where life's objectives, and not one/individual's feelings, is concerned.

Imagine being presented with the question about the animals you slaughtered. If all you can say is 'that's nature' then why not expect the same? You need more of an excuse.

You wouldn't like to be an animal who was slaughtered in an alternate farming scheme, and can sense this now!

It is wasteful of a hot prospect Earth and animal spawn, and can sense this now!

You are evil, and probably will be punished.

Frank Apisa

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind.

It will tell them exactly what they want to hear.

I've had several people claim conversations with their god since discussing this topic on the Internet. I always ask, "Did the god say anything that surprised you...something you did not expect?"

Never have gotten a true "yes" as a response.

Shamshir

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind.

It will tell them exactly what they want to hear. — Frank Apisa

No? Neither Jesus nor Moses nor Ezra nor Daniel nor Muhammad, to claim a few, could or claim that they could read God's mind.

And their stories all undergo surprise after surprise.

Frank Apisa

Shamshir
240

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind.

It will tell them exactly what they want to hear. — Frank Apisa

No? Neither Jesus nor Moses nor Ezra nor Daniel nor Muhammad, to claim a few, could or claim that they could read God's mind.

And their stories all undergo surprise after surprise. — Shamshir

Who gives a rat's ass about what people "claim."

I can "claim" to be billionaire. Does that mean I am a billionaire?

I can "claim" to be 6'2", 210 lbs. with no fat. Does that mean I am?

I can "claim" to be honest. Does that mean I am?

What are you doing in a philosophy forum, Shamshir?

Read what I wrote...and see if you can tell what I was communicating.

Shamshir

Who gives a rat's ass about what people "claim." — Frank Apisa

When the people in question are Abrahamic prophets who dispute your claim in its entirety, it's you who should care.

Frank Apisa

Shamshir
244

Who gives a rat's ass about what people "claim." — Frank Apisa

When the people in question are Abrahamic prophets who dispute your claim in its entirety, it's you who should care. — Shamshir

Why?

Do you suppose their delirium less disputable than those of someone like the posters here in PF?

Shamshir

↪Frank Apisa

It's not delirium, genius. They argued with God's intermediaries against God's intentions.

Intentions that lead to the wiping of civilisations.

Moses never wanted the Exodus, neither did Jesus want to be crucified.

Frank Apisa

↪Frank Apisa
It's not delirium, genius. They argued with God's intermediaries against God's intentions.

Intentions that lead to the wiping of civilisations.

Moses never wanted the Exodus, neither did Jesus want to be crucified. — Shamshir

So you are saying you have bought into their delirium?

Shamshir

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind. — Frank Apisa

2 Esdras 4

1 Then the angel that had been sent to me, whose name was Uriel, answered 2 and said to me, "Your understanding has utterly failed regarding this world, and do you think you can comprehend the way of the Most High?" 3 Then I said, "Yes, my lord." And he replied to me, "I have been sent to show you three ways, and to put before you three problems. 4 If you can solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see, and will teach you why the heart is evil." 5 I said, "Speak, my lord." And he said to me, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past." 6 I answered and said, "Who of those that have been born can do that, that you should ask me about such things?"

It will tell them exactly what they want to hear. — Frank Apisa

Exodus 4

13 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”

14 Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses

You want to go over that again? :clap:

Frank Apisa

Shamshir
247

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind. — Frank Apisa

2 Esdras 4

1 Then the angel that had been sent to me, whose name was Uriel, answered 2 and said to me, "Your understanding has utterly failed regarding this world, and do you think you can comprehend the way of the Most High?" 3 Then I said, "Yes, my lord." And he replied to me, "I have been sent to show you three ways, and to put before you three problems. 4 If you can solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see, and will teach you why the heart is evil." 5 I said, "Speak, my lord." And he said to me, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past." 6 I answered and said, "Who of those that have been born can do that, that you should ask me about such things?"

It will tell them exactly what they want to hear. — Frank Apisa

Exodus 4

13 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”

14 Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses

You want to go over that again? :clap: — Shamshir

Not at all.

Any of you people who suppose there is a god...can read the mind of that god.

The god will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

But, if you want to kid yourself about that...it is okay with me.

Why not ask your god if it is okay with him. (It almost certainly will be a "him"...not an it.)

No insult intended. Just telling it like it is.

By the way...read that stuff you quoted above in context...and you will see that the god was acting and saying exactly what was expected. It was needed for the lesson being taught.

Reading the mind of God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions