Omnipresence

[SimplyNothing]

Let's speculate!

Can a being be omnipresent, (any being I'm not being picky here) and simultaneously knowable or testable?

That is to say, doesn't omnipresence sort of necessitate invisibility?

By Scientific standards, what tests would you have to do on God to believe in his existence while not being able to see him? Would it be like analyzing radiation, or wind speed? If you were capable of doing these things, would he still be God?

 

[Michael]

Let's speculate!

Can a being be omnipresent, (any being I'm not being picky here) and simultaneously knowable or testable?

That is to say, doesn't omnipresence sort of necessitate invisibility?

By Scientific standards, what tests would you have to do on God to believe in his existence while not being able to see him? Would it be like analyzing radiation, or wind speed? If you were capable of doing these things, would he still be God?

I would say that omnipresence doesn't necessarily *necessitate* invisibility, but how does one define the 'presence" of "awareness"? Is awareness itself "visible"?

Visibility isn't really a necessity in terms of 'science' either. Even something that is 'unseen' (by human eyes) might still have a tangible effect on atoms or other things. Neutrinos are an excellent example. They are in a way 'omnipresent' with billions of them flowing through our physical forms on a moment to moment basis.

 

[SimplyNothing]

I would say that omnipresence doesn't necessarily *necessitate* invisibility, but how does one define the 'presence" of "awareness"? Is awareness itself "visible"?

Mind blown!

I suppose only with an electroencephalogram would awareness be visible or testable from a scientific standpoint. But even then, the subjective, fallible nature of the mind makes even the results of EEG subjective to the patient.

Visibility isn't really a necessity in terms of 'science' either. Even something that is 'unseen' (by human eyes) might still have a tangible effect on atoms or other things. Neutrinos are an excellent example. They are in a way 'omnipresent' with billions of them flowing through our physical forms on a moment to moment basis.

It's true. But they're still in discreet units. And they're testable. When we get to the theoretical edge of the Universe, they no longer exist, whereas God does. I'm wondering right now as I type this if it is paradoxical that God, from the Christian standpoint, is one, but also infinite. Or can there only be one infinite thing?

I'm hurting my own brain.

 

[Michael]

Mind blown!

I suppose only with an electroencephalogram would awareness be visible or testable from a scientific standpoint. But even then, the subjective, fallible nature of the mind makes even the results of EEG subjective to the patient.

There are in fact "tests" for "self-awareness" but typically only related to small scale forms of life.

An Omnipresent God (omnipresent awareness) would IMO require a 'living universe', which technically could be infinite and eternal.

It's true. But they're still in discreet units. And they're testable. When we get to the theoretical edge of the Universe, they no longer exist, whereas God does. I'm wondering right now as I type this if it is paradoxical that God, from the Christian standpoint, is one, but also infinite. Or can there only be one infinite thing?

I'm hurting my own brain.

I don't actually 'assume' that the universe has 'edges' or a finite shape. These are 'theories' (hypothesis actually) that also require 'testing'.

You're right in the sense that awareness itself is difficult to define. I've even seen theories that define it as a 'state of matter'.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...r-like-a-solid-a-liquid-or-a-gas-5e7ed624986d

It might be more apt to suggest that it's caused by a specific "arrangement of matter". The universe itself might just be just such an arrangement IMO.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

In such a scenario (theory), "God" wouldn't necessarily be "invisible", but his 'omnipresent awareness' might be invisible to our eyes.

 

[SimplyNothing]

There are in fact "tests" for "self-awareness" but typically only related to small scale forms of life.

Thank you for the read. I feel like we should quickly define self awareness then just so that if a non-believer actually bites on this one I haven't left any terms undefined.

Are we talking self-awareness as in, aware of your own physical movements and your own life? Or are we talking self-awareness as in awareness of your thought processes and other higher cognitive functions? Or are we being holistic? Does responding instinctively to stimuli (such as a bacterium fleeing soap in a bowl) count as awareness?

I think it's important because the first definition applies to most animals, the second applies exclusively to humans, and the third applies to everything.

Also, is self-awareness necessary in order to have awareness of the external, such as the environment or God?

As I wrote this you just helped me define my stance further. Thank you for your dialogue. Reps coming your way.

God is infinite, and God is one. God is also omnipresent. An infinite cannot be added to or taken away from. Thusly, God, or the infinite, whatever we wanna call it, if he exists, exists as the only infinite.

We have officially eradicated polytheism I believe.

Now, Atheists big quandary is that God is invisible, and thus not testable. Which makes me think that even if God spoke to them or made himself knowable subjectively (which I believe he does) blasphemy against the Holy spirit occurs. They pass it off as "an undigested bit of beef," "maybe I have schizophrenia," and so on and so forth.

It seems like they would like God to be testable, the way a seismograph tests for motions in the ground. But I think the moment you can put God to the test in this fashion, he's not God anymore.

I don't actually 'assume' that the universe has 'edges' or a finite shape. These are 'theories' (hypothesis actually) that also require 'testing'.

Neither do I. The edge of the Universe, to me, is where matter peters out into the nothingness of the vacuum. The same way grass peters out into the desert.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

In such a scenario (theory), "God" wouldn't necessarily be "invisible", but his 'omnipresent awareness' might be invisible to our eyes.

A loaded thread my friend. I'll read it in a second to understand your position better.

 

[SimplyNothing]

Lol I remember when reps used to mean something on here. Is it even possible to give them out anymore?

 

[Nithavela]

We have officially eradicated polytheism I believe.

Then you believe wrong. There are plenty of polytheistic religions alive, today. For example, there is the shinto religion of japan, mormonism, modern followers of old, pagan religions like the asatru, the serer religion and wicca.

 

[SimplyNothing]

Then you believe wrong. There are plenty of polytheistic religions alive, today. For example, there is the shinto religion of japan, mormonism, modern followers of old, pagan religions like the asatru, the serer religion and wicca.

I don't think so. Polytheism implies more than one infinite, which is a philosophical and mathematical impossibility, or finite Gods. So either Polytheism is not true, or the gods can be quantified and are thus not gods.

 

[Nithavela]

The solution to your problem: Not every religion views their gods, or god, or whatever, as infinite, omnipresent and so on. For example, the kami (gods) of shintoism have their own, more or less tightly defined sphere of influence, and they don't even have omnipotence inside of this sphere.

Of course, if you wish to define "a god" as something that only YOUR god fits into, then you can say that. BUT you should realise that not everyone, and especially not the ones following polytheistic religions, subscribe to your definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

By Scientific standards, what tests would you have to do on God to believe in his existence while not being able to see him?

None.

It takes faith, not science, to believe in His existence.

In fact, in the short time that God walked the earth in the NT and demonstrated His deity, it failed the Daubert standard in six different trials, and He was crucified.

By way of modern example:

Suppose a Charismatic or Pentecostal came to you and said:

I hear you're looking for a test that would demonstrate God? Well, test this:

Kwa maana wewe ni watoto wa Mungu na imani katika Kristo Yesu.

Would you not eventually conclude otherwise, even though that person never had a lick of foreigh language training?

 

[SimplyNothing]

The solution to your problem: Not every religion views their gods, or god, or whatever, as infinite, omnipresent and so on.

I'm aware of this. They're generally viewed as temperamental apparitions with superpowers exclusive to whatever they control.

For example, the kami (gods) of shintoism have their own, more or less tightly defined sphere of influence, and they don't even have omnipotence inside of this sphere.

I know... that's why their gods fly in the face of philosophy and mathematics, whereas God does not.

By today's standards, the polytheistic gods of old are akin to poltergeists in a haunted house throwing chairs around the room. Something to be feared if they are real, not worshipped. Especially since they're as finite as me and have little say into my destiny.

Of course, if you wish to define "a god" as something that only YOUR god fits into, then you can say that

I don't put God in a box. It's not my fault I can do that with their "gods."

BUT you should realise that not everyone, and especially not the ones following polytheistic religions, subscribe to your definition.

Keenly aware. Thank you for the post.

 

[digitalgoth]

I'm aware of this. They're generally viewed as temperamental apparitions with superpowers exclusive to whatever they control.

Like Jesus?

I know... that's why their gods fly in the face of philosophy and mathematics, whereas God does not.

The only omnipresent thing is math.

For my ally is the Math, and a powerful ally it is. The universe creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Math around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere.

By today's standards, the polytheistic gods of old are akin to poltergeists in a haunted house throwing chairs around the room. Something to be feared if they are real, not worshipped. Especially since they're as finite as me and have little say into my destiny.

Sadly, one day, monotheistic God will also be akin to the boogeyman.

 

[Nithavela]

And what kind of poltergeist do you subscribe to, digitalgoth?

 

[SimplyNothing]

Like Jesus?

Jesus and Poseidon are nothing alike. Jesus is the Lord of EVERYTHING, not just water, or air, or sex or wheat.

The only omnipresent thing is math.

How can a concept be omnipresent? God, if he exists, exists in spite of our brain. Math exists because of our brain. It quantifies things. A star is not math, but to say there is one star is math.

Are we presumptuous enough to deify math now?

I find it very interesting how non-believers refuse to believe in God, yet are swift to give scientific concepts like natural selection, evolution, and math spiritual implications. As though they have minds of their own.

What is it you believe then? My beliefs are out on the table and I have no idea what yours are?

Sadly, one day, monotheistic God will also be akin to the boogeyman.

Nevermind. That was presumptuous.

It's almost bad to purport God of the gaps but I invoke it here. There are gaps in our knowledge which will never be filled. These gaps are where empiricism ends and the speculation of our souls begins. What matters then, is what is true about the unknowable.

More accurately, and sadly, we will never know the truth about the unknowable, and can only speculate as we are now. But there are certain belief systems that fly in the face of what we do know. And I don't think the monotheistic deity of the Universe is one of them quite yet. Saying he will be is indeed presumptuous.

 

[digitalgoth]

Jesus and Poseidon are nothing alike. Jesus is the Lord of EVERYTHING, not just water, or air, or sex or wheat.

I was just saying that, at the time, Jesus pretty much did magic shows in a localized portion of the world. If he did travel the world for those missing years, which is possible, no one wrote down what he did. Localized phenomena.

How can a concept be omnipresent? God, if he exists, exists in spite of our brain. Math exists because of our brain. It quantifies things. A star is not math, but to say there is one star is math.

Are we presumptuous enough to deify math now?

The OP's question was generalized omnipresence without stipulation. Math, which you can actually use and do useful things with, appears all over the universe. It would seem to me that not only is Math a thing that ALWAYS is around us, even when there is nothing. So we should give it more credit.

I find it very interesting how non-believers refuse to believe in God, yet are swift to give scientific concepts like natural selection, evolution, and math spiritual implications. As though they have minds of their own.

Neither of them follow any real rules at all. Even our math is just a view of what's going on. There's math we haven't discovered yet.

Non-believers are probably giving scientific answers to questions, since, by your definition, they don't believe the pre-science answers that have been shown to be...hmm...how to put this...not always exactly in line with observations.

What is it you believe then? My beliefs are out on the table and I have no idea what yours are?

I have no idea what yours are either. Even if I knew down to the sub-sect you follow, I wouldn't know what you individually believe. I'm not omnipresent.

My beliefs are different I'm guessing. The nice thing is, when we get our labels out of the way, we have to pay attention to the quality of our points and counter-points.

Nevermind. That was presumptuous.

Not at all.

It's almost bad to purport God of the gaps but I invoke it here. There are gaps in our knowledge which will never be filled. These gaps are where empiricism ends and the speculation of our souls begins. What matters then, is what is true about the unknowable.

More accurately, and sadly, we will never know the truth about the unknowable, and can only speculate as we are now. But there are certain belief systems that fly in the face of what we do know. And I don't think the monotheistic deity of the Universe is one of them quite yet. Saying he will be is indeed presumptuous.

That's absolutely true, and if religious apologists of any stripe tried to focus on the soul, love, justice, honor, morals, and concepts such as these, they would be better served because those things can have debate and discussion and there is no conflicting evidence, just conflicting ideologies. And those things are needed in our lives.

The problem with trying to constantly attack science and is that because there are so many things to explore and discover, the world is becoming a bit more understandable about how things work. Physics, biology, light, geology, chemistry...these are hard things to argue against when they actually show how mechanisms work.

I'm not a Christian in the normal sense, but if I was, I might spend my time on the New Testament and the love part and how to be nice to one another, and a little less the Jewish Torah, which seems to be mostly killing people and three or four sentences here and there to explain all questions in the natural world.

 

[SimplyNothing]

I was just saying that, at the time, Jesus pretty much did magic shows in a localized portion of the world. If he did travel the world for those missing years, which is possible, no one wrote down what he did. Localized phenomena.

Oh I see, and agree.

The OP's question was generalized omnipresence without stipulation. Math, which you can actually use and do useful things with, appears all over the universe. it would seem to me that not only is Math the only thing that ALWAYS is, even when there is nothing, that we should give it more credit.

The actual meat of my question was, does omnipresence necessitate invisibility?

If we follow your logic then, and say that math is in some way omnipresent, it also seems to be invisible, and is only known by what we think or believe. In the same way that God is it would seem.

But Math does not appear until we make it appear. If I have no thoughts regarding the mathematics of the edge of the Universe, than just stuff is there. Math is dead until we think it into existence. And even then it exists solely in the mind.

Math is a concept, not an entity.

Neither of them follow any real rules at all. Even our math is just a view of what's going on. There's math we haven't discovered yet.

Agreed.

Non-believers are probably giving scientific answers to questions, since, by your definition, they don't believe the pre-science answers that have been shown to be...hmm...how to put this...not always exactly in line with observations.

I don't believe the pre-science answers either. Literalistic interpretation of the Bible is a 20th century phenomenon.

I have no idea what yours are either. Even if I knew down to the sub-sect you follow, I wouldn't know what you individually believe. I'm not omnipresent.

I believe in God, a Universal Moral law, and that energy is both positively and negatively charged regarding morality and behaviour the same way that there is a positive and negative charge to electricity. God has all knowledge of the moral law, and tries to direct our energies in a righteous direction. We're fallible and incapable of constantly being righteous. Thus God personified himself as Jesus, and put his essence into a human. Since God is omnimax, if even a touch of your makeup is God, you are God. This is how Jesus was 100% human and 100% God simultaneously.

I also believe that God is impartial, that there is no hell, and that Jesus' sacrificial death was sufficient for all mankind. The word hell first appeared in the Christian lexicon in the 5th and 6th centuries. The concept was originally from Norse religions. Due to the evolution of language, the words Sheol, and Gehenna were then replaced with the word Hell, and a pagan concept was subsequently translated into Christianity. The concept never appeared in the OT, and so Jesus couldn't possibly have come on the scene and started spouting off about a concept that the Israelites had no knowledge of in the first place.

My beliefs are different I'm guessing. The nice thing is, when we get our labels out of the way, we have to pay attention to the quality of our points and counter-points.

Agreed. I've never blindly accepted my faith and I don't think I'm gong to start now. Healthful dialogue should strengthen the truth, not weaken it. We're all on a search for truth. If my beliefs are proven incorrect, I will wash them away and conform to what is.

Not at all.

Can I have a peak into your crystal ball too then? I wanna see the winning lotto numbers.

It's not gambling if you know the outcome right.

That's absolutely true, and if religious apologists of any stripe tried to focus on the soul, love, justice, honor, morals, and concepts such as these, they would be better served because those things can have debate and discussion and there is no conflicting evidence, just conflicting ideologies. And those things are needed in our lives.

Agreed.

The problem with trying to constantly attack science and is that because there are so many things to explore and discover, the world is becoming a bit more understandable about how things work. Physics, biology, light, geology, chemistry...these are hard things to argue against when they actually show how mechanisms work.

I would never attack science. That would be foolish considering I'm going for my degree in it.

But I think that people trying to use Science to explain away spirituality is bupkiss. It will NEVER happen, because there are philosophical unknowables leading to the philosophical and spiritual discourse you mentioned.

I'm not a Christian in the normal sense, but if I was, I might spend my time on the New Testament and the love part and how to be nice to one another, and a little less the Jewish Torah, which seems to be mostly killing people and three or four sentences here and there to explain all questions in the natural world.

I like that quote from year one. Not word for word but the meat and bones of it.

Abraham: The Lord has given me all this land down to the east of the Jordan
Isaac: Funny. God hasn't seemed to tell anyone else that. We've been at war for as long as I can remember.



No in all seriousness I had just written out like four paragraphs in response to this but then decided that my thread would get horribly derailed very fast. So I will merely concede that this seems to be the general consensus of non-believers. And that I'm grateful that Jesus arrived on the scene before I was born.

 

[digitalgoth]

Oh I see, and agree.



The actual meat of my question was, does omnipresence necessitate invisibility?

If we follow your logic then, and say that math is in some way omnipresent, it also seems to be invisible, and is only known by what we think or believe. In the same way that God is it would seem.

But Math does not appear until we make it appear. If I have no thoughts regarding the mathematics of the edge of the Universe, than just stuff is there. Math is dead until we think it into existence. And even then it exists solely in the mind.

Math is a concept, not an entity.

What is your definition of invisibility? You mean undetectable in all ways? Just visually? Or quantum? Schrodinger's Cat in a box is neither alive or dead until we observe it and it's state collapses into reality?

I think if we stick a hunk of material with a calculated half life in a box, and come back and find that half of it has decayed, then we've seen math in action.

Oh we can say, 'that's just physics', but math being the universal language, what we're seeing is math in action. Not everyone might see it that way, however I do. And I suck at math and only do math problems on Sunday.

Even our brains are math. Our billions of neurons and interconnections are exciting and firing or inhibiting and suppressing electrical charges and our very thoughts follow from the math.

Math is all around us, but wants nothing from us. It just does it's thing.

I don't think Math is dead because we don't see it or apply it, I think that it occurs without us and governs the laws of how things work.

It's kind of like statistics, they take place regardless of whether we are aware of it or not. Although statistics may be a special satanic state of Math, it certainly can be used evilly.

 

[Michael]

I was just saying that, at the time, Jesus pretty much did magic shows in a localized portion of the world. If he did travel the world for those missing years, which is possible, no one wrote down what he did. Localized phenomena.

Localized at the time or not, the impact on the world today is anything but 'localized'.

The OP's question was generalized omnipresence without stipulation. Math, which you can actually use and do useful things with, appears all over the universe. It would seem to me that not only is Math a thing that ALWAYS is around us, even when there is nothing. So we should give it more credit.

Some would go far as to suggest that the mathematical underpinnings of the universe itself would constitute evidence of 'intelligent design'.

The Atom is the Product of Superior Intelligent Design: Here's Mathematical Proof: Mr. Robert Francis Hauck Jr.: 9781461074588: Amazon.com: Books

Non-believers are probably giving scientific answers to questions, since, by your definition, they don't believe the pre-science answers that have been shown to be...hmm...how to put this...not always exactly in line with observations.

I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, but lots of scientific theories are "not exactly in line with observation' either. Science is simply a more structured way of trying to explain the universe around us, whereas religion was more a 'free style first attempt'. They both suffer from the pitfalls of human subjectivity and ego however.

The problem with trying to constantly attack science and is that because there are so many things to explore and discover, the world is becoming a bit more understandable about how things work. Physics, biology, light, geology, chemistry...these are hard things to argue against when they actually show how mechanisms work.

You're assuming that it's necessary or useful to "attack science", when Christians like myself assume that would be irrelevant, unnecessary, and indeed, counterproductive. Why would I want to "attack" something that has created my computer, my cellphone, etc?

I'm not a Christian in the normal sense, but if I was, I might spend my time on the New Testament and the love part and how to be nice to one another, and a little less the Jewish Torah, which seems to be mostly killing people and three or four sentences here and there to explain all questions in the natural world.

Ultimately that is what separates 'Christianity' from 'Judaism'.

 

[Nithavela]

Siddhārtha Gautama had quite the impact too for being a localised philosophie/religion teacher.

 

[AV1611VET]

Siddhārtha Gautama had quite the impact too for being a localised philosophie/religion teacher.

Yup ... left his wife and son behind and hit the road; only to come back later, when the child was grown, to tell him how to think and act appropriately.

All dads should do that, shouldn't they?