Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84  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) |
Perfect means 'Being complete of its kind'. The more complete a thing is, the more perfect it is. The model in your computer is perfect in a sense (insofar as it is that particular model, and insofar that it exists), but if you want to talk about
absolute perfection, only all of existence can be called perfect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jasper84 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. |
I'm sorry, but I don't exactly understand your argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jasper84 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. |
Your arm is not conscious. Your eye is not conscious. The left part of your brain is. So is the right (it can be demonstrated that they can be conscious independently of each other). And yet you say that "you" are conscious. In the same sense you can say that the universe is conscious.
But yes, I agree, this part can be seen as an assumption. It is not a core part of pantheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.dric my impression is that you're stretching semantic so that your theistic views fit in a pantheistic model ... why ? |
This would be rather strange of me, since I don't
have any theistic views. Nor do I believe in panentheism, which involves a God that is external to the world. The reason that I play with semantics is because I wish to illustrate that at the core, there is no fundamental clash between the beliefs of humans, only of the way we express them. Many conflicts arise because of the way people currently discuss these issues.