Agree with hackle577, sounds like just relabeling the universe as god. Nothing is achieved.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilya 4. He is perfect. Perfection is a very vague and muddy term, but if we use its original definition, it becomes very evident that God is perfect. |
Is perfect not always perfect for some purpose? It does not seem evident that the universe is perfect to me..(what original definition of 'perfect'?) Also, a model in my computer can be seen as a universe on itself; there are neigh-zero errors in the chip on my computer. I would not accredit perfection to that model. (even if i coded it wrong, it is still a model of something, just not what i had in mind)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilya 5. God is unique. There obviously cannot be another 'Everything', from the very definition of 'Everything'. This is quite consistent with Monotheism. |
Two universes could be totally separate, like my computer model, you can see it as a single entity. However things are usually seen as separate if their interactions can be abstracted as an internal model of the objects and interactions between the models based on a external variables. Like pressure(tensor), speed, density and temperature are external variables of gas. This model has to be relinquished as precision of required statements increases.(like if someone smashes my simulating computer) On many topics of course this does not happen in practice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilya 6. God is a conscious, thinking being. |
If god is the universe, it seems an assumption that it is conscious. Certainly parts of it are conscious, as we are parts of the universe, but not the whole. I would not say my computer simulations are conscious either.
@Ilya you can use the \[Quote=<enter name> thing to make quotes with names. (Handy not to have to look back who said it again.