If I defined God as...

If I defined God as totality, would you say God then exists by that definition?

  • No

    Votes: 6 66.7%

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • Total voters
    9
Quote from 426653478:
it's like i say leprechaun and then you go; well if we call midgets leprechauns then leprechauns do exist
More...

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
No, it is not like that at all...
More...


yeah it is exactly like that - at all, at all!

You define totality so the totality you define IS what totality is.
Then you say God is totality. Well no actually, totality is what totality is.

You can define God as having the attributes of defined totality , but that does not define God as totality itself. Totality is totality itself. But you have not shown either exist just by defining them.

Otherwise like the man says..."call midgets leprechauns then leprechauns do exist"
 
"You can define God as having the attributes of defined totality , but that does not define God as totality itself. Totality is totality itself. But you have not shown either exist just by defining them."

The definition of God is totality. Totality is not an attribute of God, totality is God.

Quote from stu:

yeah it is exactly like that - at all, at all!

You define totality so the totality you define IS what totality is.
Then you say God is totality. Well no actually, totality is what totality is.

You can define God as having the attributes of defined totality , but that does not define God as totality itself. Totality is totality itself. But you have not shown either exist just by defining them.

Otherwise like the man says..."call midgets leprechauns then leprechauns do exist"
More...
 
Quote from stu:

yeah it is exactly like that - at all, at all!

You define totality so the totality you define IS what totality is.
Then you say God is totality. Well no actually, totality is what totality is.

You can define God as having the attributes of defined totality , but that does not define God as totality itself. Totality is totality itself. But you have not shown either exist just by defining them.

Otherwise like the man says..."call midgets leprechauns then leprechauns do exist"
More...

I believe what you are trying to describe is called a "tautology".

Perhaps the existence of God by that definition depends on whether a Totality has consciousness, and not on the word itself...
 
Not a totality, like the totality of a set of numbers, but rather the totality of everything, and yes, there is consciousness within the totality of everything.

Human beings exist within the totality of everything, human beings have consciousness, therefore consciousness is within the totality of everything. Consciousness is therefore an aspect of the totality.

God is the totality, the totality includes consciousness as an aspect of the totality, so God has consciousness as part of God's nature. Nothing is separate from God, as God is the totality. All partial values, as well as all whole sets of these partial values, are within the totality.

I suppose one could say THE TOTALITY OF EVERYTHING to differentiate from partial totalities (i.e. the total sum of all human beings, the sum of all photons, the sum of all forks/knives/spoons, etc. ) but it is much easier to just say God, and God is the totality of everything.

There is nothing but God from this perspective, as everything is simultaneously within God, and made of God, and completely God. Every part is both a part of the whole and the whole at the same time as God is indivisible.


Quote from WaveStrider:

I believe what you are trying to describe is called a "tautology".

Perhaps the existence of God by that definition depends on whether a Totality has consciousness, and not on the word itself...
More...
 
Quote from WaveStrider:

I believe what you are trying to describe is called a "tautology".

Perhaps the existence of God by that definition depends on whether a Totality has consciousness, and not on the word itself...
More...
Agreed.
"totality - is what totality is." ...that is a tautology. A tautology being a logical statement that is necessarily true.

Therefore "totality is God" would not be true , even if it could be at all true, perhaps in some sub context.

According to a definition of the word totality by the poster above, who is apparently undergoing some sort of the complex, totality includes everything .
That would then necessarily include consciousness.

However my definition of totality is one his cannot reach. I think that's why he gets upset :p
 
Quote from stu:

Agreed.
"totality - is what totality is." ...that is a tautology. A tautology being a logical statement that is necessarily true.

Therefore "totality is God" would not be true , even if it could be at all true, perhaps in some sub context.

According to a definition of the word totality by the poster above, who is apparently undergoing some sort of the complex, totality includes everything .
That would then necessarily include consciousness.

However my definition of totality is one his cannot reach. I think that's why he gets upset :p
More...

By "consciousness", God is usually referred to as having independent consciousness, not as a collective aggregation of consciousnesses.

So by that definition, Totality may or may not = God, depending on if you ascribe Totality as having independent consciousness.

But that returns to a more refined definition of Totality. If it is a self-referential synonym for God, then it must by it's own definition be true.

The self-awareness of that Totality - that is above and beyond the sum of parts - is where the question really is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top