metaphysical mumbo-jumbo

delude this, Richard Dawkins!

Believer: "I believe in something that is greater than me, something that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. I call that something "God". God has all the powers and forces in the universe. God is more powerful than all the forces in the universe. God knows everything, God is everywhere."

Scientist: "Mmmm, I think I see what you mean. I don't call it "God" but I certainly agree there are forces and powers in the universe, such as gravity and electromagnetism, to name just two. And that if you combined all the forces and powers into one superforce, that one superforce would be more powerful than any other force in the universe.

Omniscience? Well, I don't call it "God" but I certainly agree that if you combined all of the knowledge and information in the universe into one supermind, that supermind would know everything there is to know in the universe.

Omnipresence? Well, I don't call it "God" but certainly if you combined everything there is in the universe, material and non-material, what you would have is something that is present everywhere there is space for presence to occur. In fact, come to think of it, I call it "space", well "spacetime" to be more accurate.

Believer: So we don't really disagree at all, do we? We only disagree about what labels to apply to things. And all that means is that we are talking different languages. And that is not really a disagreement, is it?

mumbo (refresh/home)

talking with quarks

Imagine you are making a cup of tea, and some boiling water drips onto your hand. You feel pain in the part touched by the boiling water. You are aware of your hand, and you are aware of the part of your hand that hurts.

In one sense, part of your hand is talking to you (conveying a message of pain) and you know how that part is feeling (sore). In other words, you and a whole bunch of your cells are having a conversation. But you don’t know anything at the level of, or about each, individual cell. A single solitary cell in your body can not talk with you, nor can you talk with it. (As far as I know, but I don’t rule anything out, ever.)

Now, let’s scale it up. Imagine that the entire universe --or more accurately the whole of reality--is a being, an entity, a person, someone. For ease of reference let’s name this person ETI. You (dear reader) are part of ETI; you are a cell in the body of ETI, much as the cells in your body are part of you.

Say a supernova happens. ETI will be aware that part of zerself is experiencing a significant event. Analogous to the boiling water example above, ETI will be engaged in a conversation with the area of the cosmos affected by the supernova. But ETI will not necessarily be aware or capable of having a conversation with individual stellar systems, planets, or entities upon those planets.

Where am I going with this?

Well, for one thing the above could be relevant to conversations about the existence or otherwise of a so-called “personal god”. Say that god is ETI, or more accurately, that ETI is god. God is aware of the people who are part of zerself, and is capable of having a conversation with large groups or ensembles of people ((hypothetical) examples of messages from god could include the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc). But god may not be capable of having a conversation with an individual person.

For another thing, this thought experiment highlights a possible answer to the biggest question of all: the meaning and purpose of life and the nature of reality. I believe the meaning and purpose of life is for every part of ETI to help ETI know, understand, and experience what it is like to be that part. So, the meaning and purpose of my life is to help ETI know, understand and experience what it is like to be me.

So how far down and up can we scale Reality? What we have discovered so far is the progression that goes from ...quarks to atoms to molecules to aggregations of molecules (eg people, planets, whatever) to stellar systems to galaxies to galactic clusters to super-clusters to the universe to the multiverse to ... [?]

Personally, I feel we still have a long (maybe infinite) way to go at both ends, ie scaling up as well as down. Forgive my ignorance but I have a feeling that this is somehow part of what they call gauge theory.

mumbo (refresh/home)

choices have outcomes

Nothing matters is equivalent to everything mattering equally. If everything matters, nothing matters. This doesn't mean that everything is the same. It means that from a universal perspective, everything has the same value, ie is not preferred or valued above anything else, is independent and irrespective of context .

From a universal perspective, there are no values--ie all values have the same value--no "good" v "bad" or "right" v "wrong". From a universal perspective, there is only 'that which serves' and 'that which does not serve'. Say my purpose is to avoid being punched in the face. From the universal perspective it's not 'wrong' or 'bad' if I go around punching people in the face. But behaving that way will not serve my purpose because sooner or later one of those people is going to punch me right back in the face.

Everything exists and can only be defined and understood in terms of its opposite. Every attribute is paired with its anti-attribute. "Hot" and "cold" are measures of temperature and each is at the opposite end of the temperature spectrum. Without evil, good does not exist. Without darkness, light does not exist. Each is defined in terms of the absence of its opposing other.

A reality that includes more attributes is less diverse than a reality that includes fewer attributes. A reality that includes 'evil' as well as 'good' is more diverse (richer) than a reality that includes 'good' only. A reality that includes 'pain' as well as 'pleasure' is richer (more heterogeneous ?) than a reality that includes 'pleasure' (or 'pain') only. Overall, this implies an 'arrow of ontology', a preference for, bias towards, presumption of, Hegelian or otherwise, being vs nothingness. So Everything That Is (ETI) has no favorites, doesn't favor any specific values over any other, has been, is, and always will be independent of value or context.

On a personal level, I try and accept everything that comes along: good, bad and indifferent. I can only be what I am. I am what I am, and somehow that's better than not being at all. Sometimes I succeed, most times I fail miserably. But failure's OK. If there were no failure in life, in what other terms would we measure success?

mumbo (refresh/home)

a length of Planck

How small is small? How big is big? How long is the longest Planck? All qualities (qualia, if you must) are relative. Nothing is big, absolutely. Nothing is small, absolutely. Nothing is red, absolutely. Some things are bigger than others. Redder than others. Smaller than others.

The fact is, there is no such a thing as the biggest or reddest or shortest or longest or smallest thing. At one stage, atoms were supposed to be the smallest thing. Then electrons. Then protons. Now quarks are supposed to be the smallest thing. How strange. Charmed, I'm sure. From top to bottom.

The planet was once thought to be the biggest thing. Then the solar system. Then the galaxy. Then the universe. Now they are fooling with the word "universe". What we once thought of as the universe is now said by some to be part of an ensemble of universes called the multiverse. And said by others to be a baby universe---one of many (an infinite number of) offspring of a universal parent.

Words lose their meaning when they are applied to different things than that to which they formerly were applied. The word "universe" is a good example. Once upon a time the word "universe" meant: "Everything." "All of it. Without one single little bit left over." "The whole bang shoot." "The whole shebang." Then cosmologists and other horse thieves put forward hypotheses about the nature of the universe and what it represents, including, for example, the hypothesis of the multiverse, Everettian or otherwise. But, but, but. Say the hypothesis of the multiverse is true. Then, the word "universe" ("everything") should be applied to the thing called "the multiverse." And we would then need another word to describe that which we previously termed "the universe". Maybe we could call it "that which we previously called the 'universe'".

Infinity is a strange, strange beast. Just ask Georg Cantor. Some things are more infinite than others. Well, strictly speaking that is not correct. What I mean to say is some infinities are bigger than other infinities. Some infinities are smaller than other infinities. As Cantor proved, the real numbers are "more numerous" than the natural numbers.

mumbo (refresh/home)

magical reality

Every person helps to create reality. Some create consciously, others unconsciously. It can take a while, a long while, to learn how to create consciously. But every person gets there in the end.

It’s not about thinking. It's about knowing. The less you think, the more you remember how to know. People who think they know, don't know, not properly. Thinking gets you know where.

Part of it is convincing your self and your mind that you don’t want or need anything, that you are not invested in any specific outcomes, that you are not attached even to the concept of having outcomes in general.

Know this: what you think is real. But what you know is more real. So let’s get real. Reality is magical. Here’s how to make magic. Here’s how to kill and save Schrodinger’s cat, with or without observers. Here's how to make uncertainty certain. Here's how to complete incompleteness, complement complementarity. Here’s the real thing, the big one, the secret of ages, the philosopher’s stone, the elixir of life, the one ring to bind them all.

So listen closely and I’ll explain the nature of reality, and the meaning and purpose of life. But before I do, answer me two questions: Why do you want to know? And what are you going to do with the information?

Your Creator knows that somewhere in the forbidden chambers of your innermost mind, somewhere within you is a place to which you may never return. Or, out of fear or ignorance, have never entered. In that place is the knowledge you fear and love above all else. And to make progress in this or any life, you must open the door to that secret chamber, and lovingly welcome that which you find there.

And if you can’t, tough shit.

mumbo (refresh/home)

bye the rivers of Babble On

"Morning all, hope we are all well and having fun today on this bright and sunny morn," said the Multiverse to zer parts.

"Not bad, thanks Lord, under the circumstances, all things considered," responded a few of the parts.

"Has anyone seen my Son anywhere?" asked the Multiverse, aka God aka Everything That Is (ETI).

"Not in ages," responded sum of ETI's parts, "nor even aeons, or eras, nor even a couple thousand years or so, Lord, to be precise."

"No, no, not that son, the other one, the udder brudder, you know… Lucifer, the Fallen, the Evil One… that one."

"That one is always with us, Lord," replied some of the parts, "and making a bit of a nuisance of himself, Lord, to tell the truth."

"Mmm," mused ETI, "Why didn't you tell me this before? The little Beast should have been home aeons ago. I specifically told him to come straight home from Evil School!"

"We tried telling you, Lord, but you were otherwise engaged," said a brave little part.

"Say, what?!"

"Tried calling you, Lord, quite a large number of times, but just got your voicemail, so I figured you'd popped out for a coffee and doughnut."

"Why didn't you leave a message?" asked ETI.

"Gosh, Lord," said the part, "I did leave a message, several in fact. But don't you already know that, what with the omniscience and all?"

"Well, you see, here’s the thing" said ETI, "I don't want to instruct you in the meaning of your own words, tried that once before in Babble On, by the rivers of, but you see, being omniscient doesn't mean that I know everything. It means I know everything there is to know."

"Um... if you say so, Lord," asked the confused little part, "But what's the difference between knowing everything and knowing everything there is to know? Lord?"

"If you don't know now you never will," replied ETI, "but I'll give you a hint: the difference is a similar difference to that which applies between the All and the One."

"Well that's just clear as mud," said the part, "thanks heaps Lord, you've been a great help."

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit," replied ETI, subsuming the One into the All.

mumbo (refresh/home)

scissors, paper, rock

Rock blunts scissors: the dead weight of ignorance and superstition dulls the keen, sharp mind seeking truth and knowledge.

Scissors cuts paper: the keen, sharp mind is too eager and in its haste cuts the paper on which truth and knowledge are written into disconnected fragments of reductionism and limited perspective.

Paper wraps rock: the dead weight of ignorance and superstition is completely enfolded and rendered invisible by the lightness, universality and breadth of truth and knowledge.

mumbo (refresh/home)

all ways right

Everyone is right about God. All concepts of God are correct. All ways to God are right. God is always right.

God has no particular shape or form. God is all forms--from burning bush to pillar of smoke to golden calf and everything in between.

God has no particular purpose. God embraces all purposes: from good to evil from right to wrong and everything in between.

God has no particular attributes. All attributes are the attributes of God: from large to small from white to black from light to dark from round to square and everything in between.

God has no particular name. All names are the names of God: from Apollo to Zeus to Yahweh to Jesus to Beelzebub to Allah to Quetzalcoatl to Ahura Mazda and everyname between.

God has no particular relationship with anyone or anything. God is all relationships.

God issues no commandments. All commandments are God's commandments.

God has no power. God is all powers.

The nature of God is all natures.

The time of God is all times: God is constantly being born.

There are no words to describe God: all words describe God.

No particular value: all values.

No particular context. All contexts.

No particular meaning: all meanings.

God is nothing. God is everything, and everything in between.

God requires nothing: God requires everything.

mumbo (refresh/home)

music of the spheres

Most people enjoy listening to music. I know I do. But music is also a fascinating thing to think about. The connections between music and mathematics (and chess, for that matter) are well-known, and therefore will not be explored in this post. What will be explored are the following interesting questions and speculations:

Are there any connections between Fibonacci series, Bode's Law and the diatonic (tone, tone, semi-tone) scale? Are they different manifestations of a meta law? Is one a version of the other?

White is all the other colours added together. Is "white noise" all the frequencies of sound waves added together?

Why does some music sound "sad" (ie, invoke the emotion of sadness)? Why and how does music invoke specific emotions in the music-hearer (and presumably music-maker)? Are the emotions invoked by hearing music the same emotions invoked irrespective of the nature of the music-hearer, eg in terms of culture, musical tradition, and background? In so-called "Western culture", music in a minor key invokes a range of "saddish" emotions including regret, loneliness, sorrow, unrequited love, etc. Does music in a minor key always invoke emotions related to sadness in every person, irrespective of culture, musical tradition, and background?

The connections between music, emotion, mathematics and human psychology would make an interesting set of hypotheses for anthropological, sociological or psychological research.

mumbo (refresh/home)

awareness of presence of awareness

First a confession. Let me clearly state up front, the words that start after the second colon (“:”) in this post are not mine. They were created by someone else. I can’t remember who created them. I found them on the web one day many years ago, but I’ve forgotten where or how. I congratulate the author on a fine piece of writing and on some very interesting ideas, and I apologise for using zer material without attribution. With that confession and apology out the way, here goes:

Where does the feeling of helplessness, which is the essence of feeling victimized, come from? It may come from the thought that there is something "wrong" with "me" for being so helpless. Thus, we see that this experience of suffering may have as its roots identification with a self-image of inadequacy, plus a negative judgment about it. (Clearly, inadequacy also implies a doer that is inadequate. Without the concept of "doership", there could be no victim and no suffering, not to mention no victimizer. But imagined doership is the problem in identification at the second level.)

There are two important lessons to be learned from this example. The first is that the image I see in my mind of myself as victim means that I cannot be the victim! I am what is looking at the image, so I cannot be the image! This is the most fundamental step that anybody can take in disidentification. Whatever I am aware of cannot be me because I am what is aware! This one realization is enough to produce a gigantic crack in the bonds of identification.

The second important lesson is just a generalization of the first. Since nothing that I see can be me, there is no object, thing, or entity that can be me. I am not a person, not a mind, not a body, not a being, not a thought, not a feeling, not an image, not an observer, not anything. And most importantly, I am not a doer, not a thinker, not a decider, and not a chooser. Now we have progressed to disidentification at the second level.

If I am not anything, then what am I? The answer is simple: I am the pure Awareness that is aware of all things, and the pure Presence that is the Presence in all things. I am the Awareness of Presence, and the Presence of Awareness. What could be more simple, and yet so profound and so liberating?

mumbo (refresh/home)

Everything That Is

Everything That Is, has been, will be and could be (ETI) comprises all living and inanimate things and everything else, including non-material as well as material things, in this and/or any other universe or reality. And when I say "everything" I do mean "everything": Atoms and breakfasts and mountain goats and clever tactics and cabbages and kings and sealing wax and theories and vacuums and memories and nothingnesses and infinities (ask georg) and emptinesses and neurons and fables and ghosts and non-existent things and the past and the future and membranes and p-branes and topology and mobius bands and galaxies and light and everything. ETI is that which binds it all together.

Omniscience? All the knowledge there is, is part of ETI. (Note, this does not mean ETI is infinite knowledge necessarily. Rather it means that ETI is or contains all the knowledge there is, was, will be or could be.)

Omnipotence? All the power there is, is part of ETI. (Note, this does not mean ETI is infinite power necessarily. Rather, it means that ETI is or contains all the power there is, was, will be or could be.)

Omnipresence? Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, ETI is everywhere there is to be. (Note, this does not mean ETI is in infinite places necessarily. Rather it means that God is or contains or is in all the places there are, have been, will be or could be. And by the way, remember the Beatles song, "Strawberry Fields", and the line that goes, "...there's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be..."?)

I don't like to use the word/name "God" because of the potential for confusion, misunderstanding, argument and disagreement about the nature and name of ETI.

ETI is context-independent, values-free, cares for nothing and everything... but more on this later; I'm tired and want to go to bed.

home (refresh screen)

inside out or outside in

In the English language, the word "God" is used in many different ways and contexts. For example, for some people "creator of the universe" is an attribute of an Entity Referred to As God (ERTAG). In other contexts, the word "God" has different meanings, and the ERTAG has different attributes, for example, "The God named 'Zeus' hurls thunderbolts and lives on the top of Mount Olympus".

As the above two examples show, the word "God" has many different and often contradictory meanings. And the word "God" is used in a wide range of different contexts to describe beings with different and often contradictory attributes.

Some people believe an ERTAG created the universe and stands outside zer own creation, ie outside the universe. The ERTAG is believed to have created time, but is believed to stand outside of time. And yet, the ERTAG is believed to be omnipresent. But if the ERTAG stands outside of creation, ze clearly is not omnipresent. These beliefs are illogical, contradictory and inconsistent.

It's not surprising that adherents to these beliefs act and think in illogical and inconsistent ways. Nor is it surprising that these beliefs have been and continue to be a cause of much pain, suffering, death, delusion, confusion, despair and more besides.

Clearly, if one is taught to worship and revere the sacred, and if the sacred stands outside the universe, then nothing in the universe is sacred enough to warrant worship or reverence.

Clearly, if the ERTAG is believed to stand outside the universe, then believers will believe they are separate from the ERTAG, and from each other.

Clearly, if the ERTAG is said to have said in a holy book that people have dominion over the world and its creatures, and if the ERTAG stands outside the world and its creatures, then believers will feel free to use and abuse the world and its creatures, unto their doom.

In contrast, pantheists believe (correctly) that each and every thing is part of Everything That Is, Has Been, Will Be, and Could Be (ETI). Pantheists believe (correctly) that nothing exists outside of ETI, nor can anything exist outside of ETI. Pantheists believe that ETI is alive, aware, sentient and interested in what happens to every part of ETI-self.

A Pantheist does not feel separate from divinity. Ze feels part of divinity. A pantheist does not feel that the world and the creatures in it are separate from divinity. The pantheist does not believe that humankind has dominion over the world and all the creatures in it. The pantheist believes that this world and all the creatures in it and other worlds and other creatures are all part of ETI, and share in the divinity of ETI.

You may or may not have picked up on the fact that I'm bending over backward to avoid referring to ETI as "God". Because that is where the trouble begins: when people apply the same label or name or sign to different concepts. If Jehovah is the name of the ERTAG then Zeus cannot be the name of an ERTAG, and vice versa. If Brahman is the name of an ERTAG then Ahura Mazda cannot be the name of the ERTAG, and vice versa.

These arguments about the differences between this ERTAG and that ERTAG have been going on for thousands of years. And I find it incredible that no-one yet has realised there are no grounds for argument; that if there were the arguments would be at cross purposes, the arguments would be from different premises, that east is east and west is west and ne'er the twain shall meet. The dialogue below shows what I mean:

Solomon the Jew: We believe there is an entity to which we refer using the word "God". We believe the name of God is Jehovah, and that Jehovah has certain attributes, and that we must relate to Jehovah in certain ways.

Nabila the Muslim: You are wrong. The name of God is Allah, and does not have the attributes that you attribute to God.

Alexandra the Ancient Greek: You are both wrong. There are many gods, known under many different names, such as Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite and so on. Each god has different attributes, nothing like the attributes you attribute to your so-called Gods.

Jon the Atheist/Scientist: You are all wrong. There is no such thing as God or gods. The universe exists, and has certain attributes, and the universe does not have the same attributes you attribute to your Gods or gods.

Pan the Pantheist: Before you start killing each other, understand that each of you has applied the same label (or sign) to different things with different names. So let's get rid of the label. Let's say that the word "God" does not exist and has never existed. Now, let's alter the previous statements slightly, and you'll see there are no valid grounds for disagreement or hostility. Here goes:

Solomon the Jew: We believe there is an entity to which we refer using the word "Bigjew". We believe that the name of Bigjew is Jehovah. We believe that Bigjew has certain attributes.

Nabila the Muslim: Yes, that's fine. We believe there is an entity to which we refer using the word "Megamus". We believe that Megamus has certain attributes. Obviously the attributes of Megamus are not the same as the attributes of Bigjew. And why would they be? Two different things, called by different names. Each with different attributes to the other. No surprises there.

Alexandra the Ancient Greek: You are both right. There are many entities of a certain type in the universe, and we use the word "Greekling" to refer to those entities. Each Greekling has a different set of attributes and those attributes are different to the attributes of Solomon's Bigjew and Nabila's Megamus, named Jehovah and Allah respectively. And why wouldn't they be different? A Bigjew is not the same thing as a Megamus, which is not the same thing as a Greekling. So of course they have different names and different attributes.

Jon the Atheist/Scientist:"Mmm, yes I see what you mean. The aspects of reality that we scientists describe as a force of nature or a law of physics or a theory of how the world works are described by Alexandra as Greeklings. The sea is a Greekling called Poseidon or Neptune. War is a Greekling called Ares or Mars. Gravity is a Greekling that hasn't been invented yet.

Pan the Pantheist: Yes, and can you also see that the same principle applies to the positions adopted by Solomon and Nabila? Solomon refers to his conception of the universe as Bigjew. Nabila refers to her conception of the universe as Megamus. Solomon and Nabila have different conceptions of the universe so it's just plain common sense that a different word is used in each case, and that the different conceptions of the universe are named differently.

Of course, we pantheists don't have these problems. For pantheists, deity is truly omnipresent, as indicated by the acronym ETI---Everything that Is, has been, will be and could be. ETI is big enough to contain all the Greeklings, Megami and Bigjews, and all the Jehovahs, Allahs, Zei (plural of Zeus?). It doesn't matter what you call them or what word you use to refer to them, as long as you don't use another tribe's word to describe your tribe's thing.

mumbo (refresh/home)

also spracht zarathustra

The following hypothetical conversation between Moses and Zarathustra may help clarify the difference between signs, signifiers, and the signified. It's a conversation in three acts. Act 1 is about the thing (signified). Act 2 is about the qualities (signifiers) of the thing. Act 3 is about the name (sign) of the thing.

Act 1. The Thing.

Moses: "Are your people deists or atheists, believers or unbelievers?"

Zarathustra: "Deists, of course. How about yours?"

Moses: "Deists, naturally."

Act 2. The Qualities of the Thing

Zarathustra: "So tell me more about how your people identify deity."

Moses: "OK. Here goes. We worship deity. Deity sets rules for us to live by. Deity is the uncreated creator. Deity created the world and everything in it in seven days. Deity is one. I don't know the word for deity in your language but in English the word for deity is God. Now it's your turn."

Zarathustra: "I don't agree with you or your people. You are right in some respects, wrong in others. We too worship deity and try and live by the rules set by deity. It's true that deity is the uncreated creator, and that deity created the world, but not in seven days. Rather, by means of six divine sparks, or emanations, we call the amesha spenta: Manah, Asha, Kshathra, Armaiti, Haurvatat, and Ameretat. Yes, it's true that my people believe deity is one, but I have an Greek friend who tells me his people believe deity is many. And I have a Hindu friend who tells me her people believe deity is many-in-one. Yes, I too do not know the word for deity in your language but in English the word for deity is God. In the Avestan language, it is "Dadvāh"."

Act 3. The Name of the Thing.

Moses: "Deity has many names, and no names. Sometimes, we use the name "Jehovah"."

Zarathustra: "The name of deity is "Ahura Mazda".

One of the points of the three-act conversation above is to show that Moses and Zarathustra believe that on the subject of deity they have some things in common and some differences. In fact both the differences and the commonalities are illusions. When the respective sets of signifiers are not identical, then people using different signs ("Jehovah", "Ahura Mazda") to point to the same things signified ("god", "deity") may end up in disagreement, but it is an absurd disagreement, as absurd as the disagreement between a French-speaking person and an English-speaking person about whether it is correct to say "noir" or "black" in relation to the absence of light.

When the respective sets of signifiers are not identical, however, then there is a fundamental difference. But it is still absurd to have an argument about it, because the difference arises from things that are different. For example, the Amesha Spenta in Zoroastrianism are not part of Judaism. The set of attributes of deity in Judaism is not the same set of attributes of deity in Zoroastrianism. There is no logical reason to go on a crusade because "A" is not "B". It's just plain dumb. It's misunderstanding, not disagreement. It's terminology, not ontology. It's language, not truth.

mumbo (refresh/home)

older men and long white beards

"Do you believe in God?" is a stupid question. It's stupid in the very trivial hair-splitting sense that equates the word "in" with the word "inside" so that the question becomes "When you do your believing, are you inside God?". But it is also stupid in a more significant sense related to the meaning of words, and the differences between the sign, the signified and the signifier.

In the significant sense, the question is stupid because the answer depends on what is meant by "God". If you were to ask an ancient Greek, "do you believe in a man called Zeus who hurls thunderbolts?" the reply would be in the affirmative. If you were to ask that same question of a Christian, the reply would be in the negative. If you were to ask a Hindu, "Do you believe in an old man with a long white beard who made the universe and everything in it?" the reply would be, "of course not, you stupid, stupid person".

"Do you believe in God?" is a stupid question. "Do you believe that God [insert attribute]?" is a more productive question because it at least enables a discussion on what the attributes of God may or may not be. However, even in that more productive sense, the question is still stupid because it drives the ship of meaning crashing into the rocks of language. Here's a dialogue to illustrate.

mumbo (refresh/home)

metaphysical mumbo-jumbo

wormholes