metaphysical mumbo-jumbo: 9/1/07

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)

approaching the absolute

What is free will and what does it mean? Free will means you are free to choose to do anything that is within your power to do; free to choose to think anything that is in your power to think; free to choose to experience anything that is within your power to experience. But most of all, free will means you are free to define your values relative to the All, relative to ETI.

Every part of ETI that has the gift of free will defines zer values relative to the whole, to ETI. All the values and value-systems (VAVS) defined by those parts of ETI with free will are relative to other VAVS defined by other parts of ETI with free will.

Does that mean all VAVS are relative? Yes and no.

Some VAVS approach absoluteness more so than others. The VAVS held in common amongst all members of a particular culture, for instance, approach absoluteness more closely than the VAVS held by an individual. The more individuals holding VAVS in common, the closer are those VAVS to absoluteness. But the approach to absoluteness is asymptotic, ie it's an approach that never gets there, no matter how many individuals hold VAVS in common.

What about ETI zerself? Are the VAVS of ETI absolute? With one exception, they are not. ETI holds all the VAVS of all the individuals within ETI, and while some VAVS approach absoluteness more so than others, each is relative to the others. The exception is the value of existence itself, ie, beingness, ontology if you prefer. The fact that I exist and the fact that you exist means that we share at least one value: existence. In fact, everything that exists holds the value of existence. ETI holds the value of existence. Everything holds the value of existence. The one and only absolute value, now and for all time, and for all things alive and dead, is existence. Everything else is relative.

Existence is absolute. And yet. And yet. Somethingness can only be seen and understood in contrast to its opposite, nothingness. So in that sense, even existence is relative. But it is only relative to one other thing: nothingness. You've heard of the arrow of time? That it points in one direction? Well, ETI has an arrow, one and only one arrow: existence.

(Shit! I've just realised that ETI has at least one other arrow--entropy--as highlighted in the second law of thermodynamics. But there is a way out, via the law of eternal return. If we invoke the big bang / big crunch model, the arrow of entropy is compensated for by its opposite.)

mumbo (refresh/home)

worlds without end

I think. My thoughts exist. They don't exist in the material world, but they do exist. My thoughts are real. My thoughts are.

I experience feelings. Feelings are not the same as thoughts. I can feel happy without thinking about happiness, or about being happy or about whether my happiness is warranted or about where the feeling of happiness comes from. My feelings do not exist in the material world. But they do exist. My feelings are real. My feelings are. I don't know whether my feelings exist in the same world as my thoughts exist, or in another, non-material world.

Emotions: are they the same as feelings? Are emotions thoughts? Where do emotions exist?

Memories: are they thoughts? Where do memories exist? Memories can be of things in the material world as well as of things in non-material worlds. Memories of dreams, for example, are memories of things that exist in a non-material world. I can remember thoughts. I can remember events. I can remember physical objects.

Thoughts, feelings, emotions, memories, consciousness: all of these and more can and do have effects and causes in the material world. And those effects and causes persist over time. A recipe for apple-pie, for instance, can be the (formal) cause of a material apple pie coming into being in the material world. (The baker is the efficient cause). But the recipe is an idea, a thought, a sequence of thoughts. Or is it a formula, an algorithm, a series of relationships? The recipe may be captured in words on paper or in spoken words, or in pictures and symbols. Whatever it is---thought, idea, algorithm, relationship---the recipe exists in a non-material world irrespective of the nature of its captivity within a material substrate.

And yes, this is all very dualistic, I realise. But so what? In fact it's more than dualistic. Much more. There are more than two worlds, two domains. I suspect there is an infinite number of domains.

Or, maybe, just maybe, some of these things I've called non-material exist in one or more of the teeny, tiny compactified dimensions of the string theorist's 11- or 26-dimensional reality.

Now, the implications of admitting there is more than one domain, the material domain, are hugely significant. Once you open that door, all sorts of things can rush in. If mind exists in a domain that is separate and different from the material domain, then we must at least seriously consider the possibility of soul, to give just one example.

mumbo (refresh/home)

my foot is not smart

John: “The universe is alive, intelligent, aware, self-conscious and interested in what happens to me.”

Joan: “A cloud of gas is not alive. Cosmic rays are not intelligent. A lump of rock is not aware. Vacuum is not self-conscious. Spacetime doesn't give a fuck about what happens to you.”

John: “If you say so. But think of this: my foot is not conscious, right? But that doesn’t mean I am not. You say a lump of rock is not aware. (I'm not so sure but let's say you're right.) Whether or not a particular lump of rock is or is not aware does not dictate whether the universe is or is not aware. Because I'm aware, and I am part of the universe. So at least part of the universe is aware, right? And there’s lots of things like me in the universe. Lots of things that are alive, intelligent, aware, self-conscious and interested in what happens to themself. Just like there is something in me that is intelligent, even though not every part of me is as intelligent as every other part.”

Joan: “But the fact that parts of the universe are alive doesn't mean that the whole of the universe is alive”.

John: “It depends on the perspective you adopt. It depends on where you're sitting, on who's counting and what's being counted. The gestalt. My foot is not smart, but I am. If my foot were to be amputated, it would not play a very good game of chess. The universe is at least as great if not greater than the sum of its parts, and some of those parts are alive. If you define the universe to be a particular lump of rock, then yes, the universe is not alive in the sense of the word we are using here and now. But if you define the universe to be a particular lump of rock plus a whole lot of other things as well--like all things, including alive things and smart things--then yes, the universe is alive and smart."

Joan: "Thought-processing takes place in your brain. Not in your foot."

John: "I'm not sure about that. No-one knows where consciousness lives. No-one so far has been able to define what life is, where exactly life lives, what being alive means, what being aware means. No-one knows what the self is, where exactly the self lives, what personhood is."

Joan: "You're just playing with words."

John: "Maybe. As the song goes, "it's only words, and words are all I have... But seriously, we may not know wherever or whatever consciousness is, but we can be sure that it is part of Everything That Is. We may not know what life is, or what the meaning and purpose of life is, but we do know that life is part of Everything That Is. We can be sure that the meaning and purpose of life are to be found within the set of all meanings and all purposes, which in turn is part of the universal set, Everything That Is."

Joan: "So I'm a man, and my womanly breasts and vagina are just an illusion?"

John: "Great balls of snot, how do you arrive at that conclusion? Prithee explain."

Joan: "Well, there are men in the universe. I am part of the universe. Therefore I am a man."

John: "No, no, no, no. You've got it all wrong. It's not about you. Here's the correct logic: You are a woman. You are part of the universe. Therefore the universe has femininity; the universe has female parts. But it also has male parts. Because there are men and women within the universe.

And by the way, let's not use the word universe to describe the greatest gestalt of all. There may be other universes, which defeats the purpose of having a word such as 'universe'. Nor is the word 'reality' sufficiently big for our purposes. Nope. There's only one label that will do the trick, one signifier, and that is 'Everything That Is', or ETI for short. ETI is everything that is, was, will be, could be, has been, might be, and then some."

Joan: "But what keeps it all together? Who says we're all one? What binds it up into this great gestalt of yours?"

John: "Aha! The Binding Problem. Well-spotted Joan. But that dialogue is for another day."

mumbo (refresh/home)

suicide note

Higher Self: Say you woke up one morning and realised that your deathday had dawned--that you were going to die within 24 hours--what would you want to say, and to whom, before moving on to the next life?

Homunculus: Mmm! Interesting… lemme think about that for a minute…

Higher Self: Come on, get a move on, you've got 24 hours before you die, remember.

Homunculus: Well, it would depend I suppose on whether I was up to writing a 20 page philosophical treatise, or a short but instructive story, or a quick but poignant haiku, or a pithy and incredibly meaningful aphorism.

Higher Self: Jeez! You are a right royal pain in the proverbial. Just do it, OK. Nike, I mean nicely. You are gonna die soon, what do you want to say, and to whom?

Homunculus: OK, what I want to say is… the older you get, the more you understand how little you understand, and that realisation itself helps you understand more and more, sorry, I mean less and less…

Higher Self: Not bad for a patzer… paradoxical, I like that…

Homunculus: Here's some more, apologies to the fab four: there's nowhere you can be that isn't where you choose to be. There's nothing that you've done that isn't what you should have done.

Higher Self: That's a bit derivative, bordering on banale.

Homunculus: Well you're the right one to talk. You keep trying to convince me that everything has already been done. As to whether that is banale, I haven't made up my mind yet.

Higher Self: You've made your mind, now think in it.

Homunculus: Are we not losing sight of the original purpose of this interaction?

Higher Self: If you think you are losing sight of the original purpose, and that bothers you, then do, have, be something else.

Homunculus: OK, I get the picture. I grok it in fullness. So, back to the original purpose. I'm about to die. What do I want to say and to whom? I would say to my firstborn daughter, with whom I've been estranged since the day she left home, "I love you. Much more than I have ever managed to convey to you. And I am truly sorry and full of regret that I failed to tell you how much I love you and how proud I am of you. I see you. I know you. I remember you from before we both were born. And I know you will struggle. You will be unhappy. You will be insane with grief about the absence of that which you can never have. But permit me to say, that your trials are actually joys, and you will find your meaning, and I'm sorry I couldn't help you, but I think that ultimately no-one can help anyone else, because there is no-one else, we are all one. As the Buddhist said to the hotdog vendor "make me one with everything".

Higher Self: Why don't you say those things to her now?

Homunculus: I don't know. I suppose I really am a little man.

Higher Self: Are you done? Is there anything else you want to say to your firstborn daughter, or to anyone else, before you die?

Homunculus: Yes, I think I would like to say to my second-born daughter: "I've been cold, distant, detached, unapproachable. I apologise for that. You don't know this because I've never told you: I love you and admire you very much. I would have liked to know you better, because you are a fascinating person, with many great gifts, a unique person. Everyone is unique but some are more unique than others!?. You are making the same mistakes I made as a young person. But you won't hear me when I try to tell you that. So I guess you must continue making those mistakes. But don't give up on life. The world needs you. The only sin is suicide. In fact, that's not a sin either. There really is no sin, original or otherwise. Love your mother and sister, and look after them, for me. They need your groundedness.

Higher Self: Are you done? Anyone else, before you die?

Homunculus: Yes, to my mother and father, and my siblings: I'm sorry I never expressed to you my love for you. If only I had understood sooner... if only I had learned sooner... if only I had made more effort to know you... I have been so wrapped up in my own pain and my own needs that I failed to understand your pain, failed to understand that everyone has been on my side all along, has been loving me all along. But what's done is done. It may be the wrong way, it may be the wrong time, but I tell you now I love you and loved you throughout my misbegotten life. Please forgive me.

To my partner in crime and in joy, my love, my spiritual adviser, my trusted counselor, my wise teacher of truth, my lover, you know who you are. The most generous person on the planet. The most unselfish. The one who measures her happiness in the happiness she brings to others. Truly the enlightened one. God was smiling on me when he brought us together. Thank you for being you. But I do wish I could have made you happier. I wish I could have given you even one hundredth of what you gave me. And now I embark upon a journey without you but still we will never be apart. May God lavish blessings upon you, my love.

mumbo (refresh/home)

proof that UFO's exist

If anyone were to ask me whether I believe in UFO's, I would reply, "It depends what you mean by 'believe in'.

If 'believe in' means 'worship', then no--I don't worship UFO's. And no, I don't have to be in a UFO to believe in UFO's or anything else for that matter.

However, I do believe that some objects fly,and that some of those flying objects are unidentified. It is incontrovertible, undeniable and indubitable that some people have seen flying objects that continue to be unidentified until they are identified, or not as the case may be.

If you were to ask me whether I believe in God, I would reply, "It depends what you mean by 'believe in'.

I don't worship God (God doesn't request or require my worship), nor do I have to be inside God to believe in God or anything else for that matter. However, I do believe that God... (but that is for another day, another post, watch this space).

HOME of mumbo jumbo

unbundling the binding problem

There are a number of unwarranted assumptions underlying the discussion of the so-called "Binding Problem", and an overall flavour of circularity in the discussion. Not to mention the strong possibility that the innate treachery of language may be contributing to the creation of a non-issue re this issue.

Consider, for example, the Revonsuo and Newman (1999)* definition: The Binding Problem is "…the problem of how the unity of conscious perception is brought about by the distributed activities of the central nervous system."The Binding Problem is called a problem because we don't know how the unity of conscious perception happens. So it's a problem for us because we don't understand it. In fact, not only do we not know how "it" happens, we don’t even know what "it" is, why “it” is, or even whether “it” happens at all.

There is still no good theory of consciousness: what it is, where it lives, whether it is in fact unified, etc. And there is still no good theory of "personal selfhood": what it is, where it lives, whether it is one or many, where the boundary of the self is, etc.

There is no "central meaner" to mangle Daniel Dennett. There is no homunculus in the control room inside your skull behind your eyes. There is no control room, there is no ONE in control. Consciousness emerges when a certain level of complexity is reached--it is susceptible to reductionist analysis only up to a point, and no further. And beyond that point, there is still a fair way to go, we suspect.

This whole area is very slippery. There is much potential here for confusing or confuting the whole with its parts. Which in turn raises more questions about the gestalt, and how fine- or coarse-grained it can be.

So the opportunity is to focus less sharply on the "how" and more sharply on the "what", the "why" and the "whether". Less on the parts, and more on the whole. And in so doing, maybe we will discover and come to understand a great deal more than we bargained for, or even suspected was out there to be understood.

For instance, maybe we will discover a quantum theory of consciousness. (And no, I don't think it has anything to do with microtubules or morphic resonance). Maybe we will discover that observers can and do create realities in a much more substantial, divine, really real way than could ever be encompassed in the trivial speculations of new age spirituality. Maybe we will find a truth much bigger than the wildest dreams of the Deepak Chopras and James Redfields and their like.

Maybe. But then again, maybe not. What do you think?

* Revonsuo, A and Newman, J. (1999). Binding and Consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition 8, 123-127.

mumbo (refresh/home)

entangle meant

What is meant by "entanglement" is that there is only one thing. What seems to be a multitude of things is actually just one thing--a fact demonstrated by the extensive entanglement of the one thing with itself. Likewise, what seems to be a fundamental disagreement between Atheists, believers and others is only an apparent disagreement arising from the limitations of language and human understanding.

Monotheist:
Something we refer to as "God" in the language named "English" created everything that is, has been, will be and could be.

Polytheist: Some entities have power over some parts of everything that is, has been, will be and could be; other entities have power over other parts. Some entities created and create some things. Other entities created and create other things. Everything and anything has been and is created by one or other entity. Some people refer to these entities as "gods" in the language named "English".

Atheist:
Reality comprises everything that is, has been, will be and could be. Some people call the whole, "the universe". Other people call the whole, "Reality". Others call it "the Multiverse". Others, "the All". The parts of the whole, the parts of the universe, are known by many different names, eg "matter", "energy", "gravity", "electromagnetism", etc.

Pantheist:
Everything That Is, has been, will be and could be (ETI) comprises a whole that is alive, aware, growing and learning. I don't care what the name of it is. The name of a thing is less important than the nature of a thing (depending on ones definition of "important", of course!). We can call ETI "God" or "Zeus" or "Oogabooga". Doesn't matter to this discussion. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Monotheist:
God created every force, potency, strength, power, and capability. God has the power to exercise every power. God is omnipotent.

Polytheist:
Some gods have more or less power than others. Each god has a different power or set of powers. But taken together, all gods have and exercise all powers. Sometimes, gods grant non-gods (eg people) the power to exercise some powers. But ultimately, there are no powers other than those exercised by a god or gods, or by a non-god to whom a god grants the power to exercise powers. Taken together, gods represent omnipotence.

Atheist:
There are many forces and powers in the universe, including gravity, the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and others. Taken together, these powers represent all the powers that exist within the universe. There are no powers outside the universe. The universe is omnipotent.

Pantheist:
Everything That Is, has been, will be and could be (ETI) includes all powers and forces. ETI is omnipotent.

Monotheist:
God created everything. God knows everything; God is omniscient.

Polytheist:
Some gods know some things; other gods know other things. Some gods know more than other gods. But taken together, gods know everything there is to know. As a whole, taken together, gods are omniscient.

Atheist:
There are many things to know within the universe. There is nothing to be known outside the universe. Everything that is known, is known within the universe. Everything that can be known, is known within the universe. The universe is omniscient.

Pantheist:
ETI includes all knowledge. ETI includes everything there is to know, everything that can be known. ETI is alive and well and intelligent and omniscient.

Monotheist:
There's something I'm a bit confused about. The Priests tell my people that God is everywhere, is omnipresent, but also that some things are things of the devil, and some places are places of the devil, where God is not. They also say that God stands outside space and time. I'm confused.

Polytheist:
Some gods are found in some places; other gods are found in other places. But taken together, there is no place where a god is not or where gods are not. Gods are omnipresent.

Atheist:
There are many places in the universe. In fact, all places are in the universe, by definition. The universe is omnipresent.

Pantheist:
You are all right. There are no places which are not part of ETI, including places where gods reside, and places where anti-gods reside. ETI is omnipresent.

mumbo (refresh/home)