God - Revision history

Fractalguy: /* What Has All of These Properties? */

2026-01-10T01:21:46Z

What Has All of These Properties?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 10 January 2026
Line 51:		Line 51:

	== Advantages of This Definition ==		== Advantages of This Definition ==
			[[File:Oh-shit-its-god-again.jpeg\|right\|frameless\|400x400px]]
	Viewing god in this context resolves the logical paradoxes and contradictions inherent in any [[supernatural]] definition. It allows us to discuss god without abandoning [[science]], or even unify the study of [[science]] and [[religion]] under one umbrella. It allows for discourse between those with scientific backgrounds and those with [[religious]] ones under the understanding that one approach is empirical and the other intuitive and [[poetic]], but both seek to understand the same thing. While intuitive [[truths]] cannot supersede empirical ones, they can inform and inspire them if not dismissed.		Viewing god in this context resolves the logical paradoxes and contradictions inherent in any [[supernatural]] definition. It allows us to discuss god without abandoning [[science]], or even unify the study of [[science]] and [[religion]] under one umbrella. It allows for discourse between those with scientific backgrounds and those with [[religious]] ones under the understanding that one approach is empirical and the other intuitive and [[poetic]], but both seek to understand the same thing. While intuitive [[truths]] cannot supersede empirical ones, they can inform and inspire them if not dismissed.

	Prior to the development of the [[scientific method]], the dualistic notion of god and the [[universe]] being wholly separate was not nearly as rigid as it has become [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism]. In any case, any independent view of [[religion]] must come to the conclusion that each was an attempt to create an explanation using the [[language]] and stories of their culture of how the [[universe]] came to be and how humans should function within it, and to pass on their accumulated wisdom to future generations. Those not bound to [~~https~~:~~//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~~Biblical_literalism literalism] can find this interpretation allows you to take advantage of this ancient wisdom in a way that is fully compatible with a rational, scientific [[universe]] without internal contradiction.		Prior to the development of the [[scientific method]], the dualistic notion of god and the [[universe]] being wholly separate was not nearly as rigid as it has become [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism]. In any case, any independent view of [[religion]] must come to the conclusion that each was an attempt to create an explanation using the [[language]] and stories of their culture of how the [[universe]] came to be and how humans should function within it, and to pass on their accumulated wisdom to future generations. Those not bound to [[wikipedia:Biblical_literalism\|literalism]] can find this interpretation allows you to take advantage of this ancient wisdom in a way that is fully compatible with a rational, scientific [[universe]] without internal contradiction.

	If you are a [[gambler]] and you have to put your money on one definition of god, from among every [[culture]] and [[religion]] throughout [[history]], don't you think that [[Pantheism]] is the safest bet?		If you are a [[gambler]] and you have to put your money on one definition of god, from among every [[culture]] and [[religion]] throughout [[history]], don't you think that [[Pantheism]] is the safest bet?

Fractalguy at 22:59, 13 August 2025

2025-08-13T22:59:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:59, 13 August 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:

	So before any substantive discussion of [[religion]] takes place it is important to agree on, or at least understand, what both parties mean when they refer to "god".		So before any substantive discussion of [[religion]] takes place it is important to agree on, or at least understand, what both parties mean when they refer to "god".

			It also helps if your definition is easy to understand, and provides a consistent [[allegory]] through which you can interpret [[scripture]] with some degree of [[objectivity]]. In other words, this is not some [[Jordan Peterson]] style [[rhetorical]] trick using an overly confusing and obfuscating definition of god that is designed to elicit the [[wikipedia:Barnum_effect\|Barnum Effect]]. It's more like [[wikipedia:Baruch_Spinoza\|Spinoza]], simplified!

	== Properties of God ==		== Properties of God ==

Fractalguy: /* Pantheism or Panentheism? */

2025-06-13T14:29:29Z

Pantheism or Panentheism?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:29, 13 June 2025
Line 67:		Line 67:

	== Pantheism or Panentheism? ==		== Pantheism or Panentheism? ==
	If you feel like going around all day explaining the difference between [[Pantheism]] and [[wikipedia:Panentheism\|Panentheism]] in order to be more precise about your professed belief system, then by all means be a [[wikipedia:Panentheism\|Panentheist]]. It is technically more accurate since this definition of god includes the transcendent as well as the immanent. Most people still don't even know what [[Pantheism]], so using the more general, commonly understood term is helpful when trying to avoid unnecessary overcomplication.		If you feel like going around all day explaining the difference between [[Pantheism]] and [[wikipedia:Panentheism\|Panentheism]] in order to be more precise about your professed belief system, then by all means be a [[wikipedia:Panentheism\|Panentheist]]. It is technically more accurate since this definition of god includes the transcendent as well as the immanent. Most people still don't even know what [[Pantheism]] is, so using the more general, commonly understood term is helpful when trying to avoid unnecessary overcomplication.

			This [[wiki]] will not bother to distinguish between these two as they are functionally equivalent to the extent that the vast majority of people care.

	== The God Concept ==		== The God Concept ==

Fractalguy: /* Many of the Same Things but in a Video */

2025-06-13T14:25:12Z

Many of the Same Things but in a Video

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 13 June 2025
Line 81:		Line 81:
	This is an example of [[metaphor mapping]], which is a technique used here and throughout this [[wiki]] to reframe [[spiritual]] [[concepts]] within the context of [[scientific]] [[materialism]].		This is an example of [[metaphor mapping]], which is a technique used here and throughout this [[wiki]] to reframe [[spiritual]] [[concepts]] within the context of [[scientific]] [[materialism]].

	== ~~Many of the Same Things but in a Video~~ ==		== Others Saying Similar Stuff ==

			First some Hidden Brain episodes that discuss our neurological need for god.

			* [https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/creating-god/ Hidden Brain - Creating God]
			* [https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/our-god-shaped-brains/ Hidden Brain - Our God-Shaped Brains]

	This video does a good job of explaining how [[pantheism]] fulfills the working definition of god detailed here.		This video does a good job of explaining how [[pantheism]] fulfills the working definition of god detailed here.
Line 89:		Line 94:
	This lecture from [[wikipedia:Rupert_Sheldrake\|Rupert Sheldrake]] details this [[perspective]] and cites many [[historical]] references from [[religion]], [[philosophy]], and [[science]]. He is known to dabble in panpsychism and [[woo]] sometimes, but this talk really hits on all the major arguments and precedents for the naturalistic definition of god.		This lecture from [[wikipedia:Rupert_Sheldrake\|Rupert Sheldrake]] details this [[perspective]] and cites many [[historical]] references from [[religion]], [[philosophy]], and [[science]]. He is known to dabble in panpsychism and [[woo]] sometimes, but this talk really hits on all the major arguments and precedents for the naturalistic definition of god.
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFM6Aak3eNM\|\|center\|Panentheism: God in Nature and Nature in God\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFM6Aak3eNM\|\|center\|Panentheism: God in Nature and Nature in God\|frame}}

	~~[https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/creating-god/ Hidden Brain - Creating God]~~

	~~[https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/our-god-shaped-brains/ Hidden Brain - Our God-Shaped Brains]~~

	<br>		<br>

Fractalguy: /* Many of the Same Things but in a Video */

2025-06-13T14:23:25Z

Many of the Same Things but in a Video

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 13 June 2025
Line 87:		Line 87:
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpz9Ec8Il38\|\|center\|Is the Universe God? Pantheism Explained and Debated\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpz9Ec8Il38\|\|center\|Is the Universe God? Pantheism Explained and Debated\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>
	This lecture from Rupert Sheldrake details this [[perspective]] and cites many [[historical]] references from [[religion]], [[philosophy]], and [[science]].		This lecture from [[wikipedia:Rupert_Sheldrake\|Rupert Sheldrake]] details this [[perspective]] and cites many [[historical]] references from [[religion]], [[philosophy]], and [[science]]. He is known to dabble in panpsychism and [[woo]] sometimes, but this talk really hits on all the major arguments and precedents for the naturalistic definition of god.
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFM6Aak3eNM\|\|center\|Panentheism: God in Nature and Nature in God\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFM6Aak3eNM\|\|center\|Panentheism: God in Nature and Nature in God\|frame}}

Fractalguy at 14:14, 13 June 2025

2025-06-13T14:14:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:14, 13 June 2025
Line 65:		Line 65:

	If [[pantheism]] makes more sense to you then it makes more sense and it doesn't matter what any [[religious]] authority says about it. And if panpsychism makes more sense to you and fulfills your expectation of a [[conscious]] god, it doesn't really matter what this [[wiki]] says about it. Especially since it's unlikely to impact your [[life choices]] in any meaningful way.		If [[pantheism]] makes more sense to you then it makes more sense and it doesn't matter what any [[religious]] authority says about it. And if panpsychism makes more sense to you and fulfills your expectation of a [[conscious]] god, it doesn't really matter what this [[wiki]] says about it. Especially since it's unlikely to impact your [[life choices]] in any meaningful way.

			== Pantheism or Panentheism? ==
			If you feel like going around all day explaining the difference between [[Pantheism]] and [[wikipedia:Panentheism\|Panentheism]] in order to be more precise about your professed belief system, then by all means be a [[wikipedia:Panentheism\|Panentheist]]. It is technically more accurate since this definition of god includes the transcendent as well as the immanent. Most people still don't even know what [[Pantheism]], so using the more general, commonly understood term is helpful when trying to avoid unnecessary overcomplication.

	== The God Concept ==		== The God Concept ==
Line 84:		Line 87:
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpz9Ec8Il38\|\|center\|Is the Universe God? Pantheism Explained and Debated\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpz9Ec8Il38\|\|center\|Is the Universe God? Pantheism Explained and Debated\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>
	This lecture from Rupert Sheldrake details this [[perspective]] and cites many [[historical]] references.		This lecture from Rupert Sheldrake details this [[perspective]] and cites many [[historical]] references from [[religion]], [[philosophy]], and [[science]].
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFM6Aak3eNM\|\|center\|Panentheism: God in Nature and Nature in God\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFM6Aak3eNM\|\|center\|Panentheism: God in Nature and Nature in God\|frame}}

Fractalguy: /* Many of the Same Things but in a Video */

2025-06-13T14:07:37Z

Many of the Same Things but in a Video

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, 13 June 2025
Line 83:		Line 83:

	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpz9Ec8Il38\|\|center\|Is the Universe God? Pantheism Explained and Debated\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpz9Ec8Il38\|\|center\|Is the Universe God? Pantheism Explained and Debated\|frame}}
			<br>
			This lecture from Rupert Sheldrake details this [[perspective]] and cites many [[historical]] references.
			{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFM6Aak3eNM\|\|center\|Panentheism: God in Nature and Nature in God\|frame}}

	[https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/creating-god/ Hidden Brain - Creating God]		[https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/creating-god/ Hidden Brain - Creating God]

Fractalguy: /* Panpsychism and God's Consciousness */

2025-02-02T05:25:11Z

Panpsychism and God's Consciousness

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:25, 2 February 2025
Line 62:		Line 62:
	If the property of [[consciousness]] is essential to you, then take the emergent property of [[consciousness]] in [[neural network]] [[feedback loops]] as an [[inevitable]] property of the [[universe]] and the human [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness hive mind] as god's [[consciousness]]. We don't need to pretend that rocks and stars have [[consciousness]] for god to have it. If god's [[consciousness]] is an [[allegory]], what's it an [[allegory]] for?		If the property of [[consciousness]] is essential to you, then take the emergent property of [[consciousness]] in [[neural network]] [[feedback loops]] as an [[inevitable]] property of the [[universe]] and the human [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness hive mind] as god's [[consciousness]]. We don't need to pretend that rocks and stars have [[consciousness]] for god to have it. If god's [[consciousness]] is an [[allegory]], what's it an [[allegory]] for?

	What is more relevant is whether there is [[historical]] and [[theological]] precedent for the [[pantheistic]] assumption based on the [[evolution]] of [[language]] and how our ancestors perceived the world without [[science]], and whether it works to resolve ideological conflict and [[cognitive dissonance]]. The the lack of a [[conscious]] [[supernatural]] god is a technicality that philosophers and theologians can bicker over.		What is more relevant is whether there is [[historical]] and [[theological]] precedent for the [[pantheistic]] assumption based on the [[evolution]] of [[language]] and how our ancestors perceived the world without [[science]], and whether it works to resolve [[ideological]] conflict and [[cognitive dissonance]]. The the lack of a [[conscious]] [[supernatural]] god is a technicality that [[philosophers]] and theologians can bicker over.

	If [[pantheism]] makes more sense to you then it makes more sense and it doesn't matter what any [[religious]] authority says about it. And if panpsychism makes more sense to you and fulfills your expectation of a [[conscious]] god, it doesn't really matter what this [[wiki]] says about it. Especially since it's unlikely to impact your [[life choices]] in any meaningful way.		If [[pantheism]] makes more sense to you then it makes more sense and it doesn't matter what any [[religious]] authority says about it. And if panpsychism makes more sense to you and fulfills your expectation of a [[conscious]] god, it doesn't really matter what this [[wiki]] says about it. Especially since it's unlikely to impact your [[life choices]] in any meaningful way.

Fractalguy: /* Many of the Same Things but in a Video */

2025-01-17T19:32:18Z

Many of the Same Things but in a Video

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, 17 January 2025
Line 94:		Line 94:
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gioaH2kFaIM\|\|center\|Spinoza's God\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gioaH2kFaIM\|\|center\|Spinoza's God\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>
	More generally, we should rethink our preconceived notions about what god is and come up with definitions that work better for us and for humanity's [[future]]. Rainn Wilson discussing god with ~~CosmicSkeptic~~ is a quintessentially appropriate video for a [[wiki]] with a [[science]] meets [[spirituality]] meets pop [[culture]] theme. The [[wikipedia:Baháʼí_Faith\|Baháʼí Faith]] is [[universalist]], and offers one of the most nuanced takes on the nature of god of any world [[religion]]. This video is an excerpt. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LWEeaSFhP4 Watch the full interview here].		More generally, we should rethink our preconceived notions about what god is and come up with definitions that work better for us and for humanity's [[future]]. Rainn Wilson discussing god with Alex O'Connor is a quintessentially appropriate video for a [[wiki]] with a [[science]] meets [[spirituality]] meets pop [[culture]] theme. The [[wikipedia:Baháʼí_Faith\|Baháʼí Faith]] is [[universalist]], and offers one of the most nuanced takes on the nature of god of any world [[religion]]. This video is an excerpt. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LWEeaSFhP4 Watch the full interview here].
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvOJSpcbX3A\|\|center\|We're Thinking About God All Wrong - Rainn Wilson\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvOJSpcbX3A\|\|center\|We're Thinking About God All Wrong - Rainn Wilson\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>

Fractalguy: /* What Has All of These Properties? */

2025-01-17T19:31:26Z

What Has All of These Properties?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 17 January 2025
Line 46:		Line 46:
	[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent Omnibenevolent]: since god is [[everything]], god is also [[everything]] that is [[good]]. While [[good]] and [[evil]] are products of the human [[brain]], the human [[brain]] is also part of the [[universe]] and therefore part of god. The [[universe]] itself is not necessarily on either side of the [[good]] versus [[evil]] dichotomy, but the human [[brain]] is. The notion of omnibenevolence is necessary to maximize the [[psychological]] benefit of the [[god concept]]. Even though the [[universe]] itself isn't [[conscious]] and definitely doesn't care about you, it is inherently advantageous to view it as ''a very good place to live one's life''.		[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent Omnibenevolent]: since god is [[everything]], god is also [[everything]] that is [[good]]. While [[good]] and [[evil]] are products of the human [[brain]], the human [[brain]] is also part of the [[universe]] and therefore part of god. The [[universe]] itself is not necessarily on either side of the [[good]] versus [[evil]] dichotomy, but the human [[brain]] is. The notion of omnibenevolence is necessary to maximize the [[psychological]] benefit of the [[god concept]]. Even though the [[universe]] itself isn't [[conscious]] and definitely doesn't care about you, it is inherently advantageous to view it as ''a very good place to live one's life''.

	[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_existence Eternal]: while the current instance of our universe appears to have a beginning with the [[big bang]] about 13.8 billion years ago, and will [[Apocalypse Prevention\|inevitably collapse or experience heat death]] in another 200 billion years (give or take), this still doesn't quite make it to "eternal". For organisms with a [[lifespan]] of under 100 years, this is pretty darned eternal. But if you really want [[time]] to be infinite then it becomes necessary to look outside of our current [[universe]]. Though we currently lack the [[technology]] to gain empirical knowledge of what lies outside the known [[universe]], it is easy to conceive an eternal multiverse without a [[supernatural]] actor. The [[universe]] could simply repeat its 200 billion year cycle of [[birth]] and [[death]] over and over forever, or it could be a part of a multiverse with an infinite number of [[Universe\|universes]] being created and destroyed every second.		[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_existence Eternal]: while the current instance of our universe appears to have a beginning with the [[big bang]] about 13.8 billion years ago, and will [[Apocalypse Prevention\|inevitably collapse or experience heat death]] in another 200 billion years (give or take), this still doesn't quite make it to "eternal". For organisms with a [[lifespan]] of under 100 years, this is pretty darned eternal. But if you really want [[time]] to be infinite then it becomes necessary to look outside of our current [[universe]]. Though we currently lack the [[technology]] to gain empirical knowledge of what lies outside the known [[universe]], it is easy to conceive an eternal multiverse without a [[supernatural]] actor. The [[universe]] could simply repeat its 200 billion year cycle of [[birth]] and [[death]] over and over forever, or it could be a part of a multiverse with an infinite number of [[Universe\|universes]] being created and destroyed every second.<blockquote>''"God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world." -''[[wikipedia:Paul_Dirac\|Paul Dirac]]</blockquote>[[wikipedia:Transcendence_(religion)\|Transcendent]]: this is the one property of god that the physical [[universe]] cannot manifest, since by definition "transcendent" means apart from the physical [[universe]]. But there is something that exists in the abstract that governs everything that happens in the [[universe]]--the rules of [[logic]] and the [[mathematical]] systems that are derived from it. In [[metaculture]], the transcendent is represented by the [[fractal]], a [[mathematical]] construct that is [[infinite]], [[logical]], [[self-organizing]] and [[beautiful]]. God is the [[universe]] (implying [[wikipedia:Immanence\|Immanence]]) but the [[universe]] is also the product of the abstract rules of [[logic]] and [[Self-organization\|self-organized complexity]], and therefore transcendent.

	[~~https~~:/~~/en.~~wikipedia~~.org/wiki/~~Transcendence_(religion) Transcendent]: this is the one property of god that the physical [[universe]] cannot manifest, since by definition "transcendent" means apart from the physical [[universe]]. But there is something that exists in the abstract that governs everything that happens in the [[universe]]--the rules of [[logic]] and the [[mathematical]] systems that are derived from it. In [[metaculture]], the transcendent is represented by the [[fractal]], a [[mathematical]] construct that is [[infinite]], [[logical]], [[self-organizing]] and [[beautiful]]. God is the [[universe]] (implying [~~https~~:~~//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~~Immanence Immanence]) but the [[universe]] is also the product of the abstract rules of [[logic]] and [[Self-organization\|self-organized complexity]], and therefore transcendent.

	== Advantages of This Definition ==		== Advantages of This Definition ==