God is the conscious universe manifesting lower levels of reality such as physical ma

[Ostronomos]

...tter. 

You see, God is supreme. We have that in common. By giving thanks to Him everyday.

[Syne]

This is nothing more than proselytizing at this point...which most reputable science forums don't allow.

[C C]

This is nothing more than proselytizing at this point...which most reputable science forums don't allow.

The creation of Alternative Theories was originally or arguably done for any abstract-construct monomanias that came along, perhaps even when they're obvious recruitment efforts (Stryder would have to clarify that). But Ostros vanished (intermittently) after triggering its introduction, so seems to have become half-forgotten that that sub-forum was supposed to be his stomping ground. The religion / spiritual one, too, perhaps, if it's just god-talk or being "one with the cosmos" or whatever in a generic context without CTMU.

- - -

[Yazata]

God is the conscious universe manifesting lower levels of reality such as physical matter.

You see, God is supreme. We have that in common. By giving thanks to Him everyday.

This was posted in the 'Logic, metaphysics and philosophy' forum.

In order to belong here, the assertions above need explanation of what they mean and they need to be accompanied by reasons to believe that what is said might be plausible.

Absent some intellectual (as opposed to strictly devotional) content, this thread probably needs to be moved to a different forum. (Religion?)  

Philosophy and metaphysics aren't just cosmic-sounding statements that somebody finds inspiring.

[Syne]

Nah, it's still just proselytizing....and has no place on a science forum.

As Yaz says, there needs to be justification beyond bare assertion. Otherwise, what's there to actually discuss?

[Ostronomos]

God is the conscious universe manifesting lower levels of reality such as physical matter.

You see, God is supreme. We have that in common. By giving thanks to Him everyday.

This was posted in the 'Logic, metaphysics and philosophy' forum.

In order to belong here, the assertions above need explanation of what they mean and they need to be accompanied by reasons to believe that what is said might be plausible.

Absent some intellectual (as opposed to strictly devotional) content, this thread probably needs to be moved to a different forum. (Religion?)  

Philosophy and metaphysics aren't just cosmic-sounding statements that somebody finds inspiring.

I was promoting God without reason, you've got me there.

My apologies.

As for plausible reasons. Perhaps God can be likened to a universal or self-distributed entity that is both supernatural and real. A grandfather clock for the universe but in a non-physical sense.

I propose that God is a non-random processor of reality or mind which is inherent to the Quantum world via the observer. The God equates to reality because it is mind-like.

[Syne]

That's still a lot of bare assertions without any real justification why anyone else should agree...or even enough argument to warrant any rational dissent.

You can "liken" god to anything, but until you give reasons why, it's just a fart in the wind.

[Ostronomos]

That's still a lot of bare assertions without any real justification why anyone else should agree...or even enough argument to warrant any rational dissent.

You can "liken" god to anything, but until you give reasons why, it's just a fart in the wind.

Here is a quote by Langan:

"What is your definition of Mr. Langan's use of the term 'Distributed Solipsism' in the CTMU paper?"
"Distributed solipsism" - a term which, to my knowledge, originated in/with the CTMU - has already been defined in that paper and elsewhere. It refers to the Self-distribution of a meta-solipsistic God Self-configured as Ultimate Reality.

In configuring Himself as Ultimate Reality (UR), God imposes on Himself a self-dual closure property. As secondary images of God must ultimately conform to His nature, they cannot define absolute reality externally to self without danger of metaphysical self-annihilation (note the term "absolute", which corresponds to "ultimate" in the logico-theological context). Hence, the dire fate of those who categorically deny or behave antithetically to the existence of God - harsh though it may appear, this is a straightforward implication of what it means to be an "image" under a structure-preserving ontological mapping to which one refuses to conform.
Under the logical structure of this definition, when we speak of "otherness", we are referring to a limited concept of externality that vanishes in the global limit. This is a basic metaphysical symmetry of reality from which divergent philosophical speculations are mere distractions.

So we see that paradox is resolved by this inclusory self-mapping or dual closure property between God and secondary images. Any attempt at an external definition of reality cannot conform to God's nature and is thus in danger of metaphysical self-annihilation.

Here was my response to Langan:

Reality is comparable to self-configuration. And because it is closed, it is self-referrential. Any identity of "other" could only exist outside reality if it is not an inclusory self-mapping or falls short of a self-dual closure property. This is because reality can only be described in terms of itself, excluding or negating any non-identity or non-product. The concept of syndiffeonesis can be redefined as any two things are different because they have at least one similarity in common, namely that they are both real. And so I propose that if the self-distributed awareness of God configures Himself as reality then image can only be beneath his invariant and absolute identity.

[Syne]

What "paradox"? You claim to resolve something that appears to be a complete non-sequitur. You also continue to parrot the pseudo-philosophical/scientific claptrap without ever managing to state anything in common language terms. It's intentionally obscuring.

The only part of that that is clear is "Under the logical structure of this definition, when we speak of "otherness", we are referring to a limited concept of externality that vanishes in the global limit." And this is just a simple expression of monism. Since monism is already compatible with a god, there's no logical reason to jump through all this convoluted and obfuscating jargon.

IOW, if you can't unpack your jargon, you're not really trying to communicate with anyone...just proselytizing at them.

[Ostronomos]

What "paradox"? You claim to resolve something that appears to be a complete non-sequitur. You also continue to parrot the pseudo-philosophical/scientific claptrap without ever managing to state anything in common language terms. It's intentionally obscuring.

The only part of that that is clear is "Under the logical structure of this definition, when we speak of "otherness", we are referring to a limited concept of externality that vanishes in the global limit." And this is just a simple expression of monism. Since monism is already compatible with a god, there's no logical reason to jump through all this convoluted and obfuscating jargon.

IOW, if you can't unpack your jargon, you're not really trying to communicate with anyone...just proselytizing at them.

Permit me to clarify where the paradox arises. Reality can only be defined in terms of itself, this qualifies it as an inclusory self-mapping (in the mathematical sense). In other words, if reality could be defined externally, then reality would be external to itself, making it internal. What you call convoluted and obfuscating is simply a means of attempting precision in communicating a complex thought process. Although I admit that Occam's razor may be violated to some degree, the "monstrosity" of sentences is due to the inefficiency of the rate at which the brain achieves clarity by its seeing through confusion. Otherwise, it is unprecedentedly insulting to demand more than what one tries to accomplish with best efforts.