I suspect memory is one of those brain functions that evolved along with our other mental faculties as a survival mechanism. Being able to recall the pertinent circumstances that led up to an unpleasant experience helps us not to duplicate those circumstances. I’d say awareness, like the sensations from our pleasure/pain centers, is more immediate and ongoing. For a being that is eternal, survivability is not an issue thus memory is too complex a mechanism for awareness on that level.
Ok, so without the ability to recall what has occurred then you’d be looking to define a concept of God which has no self awareness?
You’re right, but for the wrong reason. Since I’m postulating the existence of the universe as an incidental consequence of OMS existence, I’m likewise postulating OMS awareness of his existence includes the existence of any incidental consequences of his existence. “Self” awareness is too much to ascribe to OMS awareness since “self” connotes much more complex psychological constituents than OMS possesses. I’m reaching here for the least common denominators in OMS relationship to the universe. While the universe advances towards maximum complexity, OMS remains the least, simplest foundational center of this advancement.
Awareness on that level in humans is electrochemical response. Another survival mechanism. You experience pain, you react.
Neurotransmission. OMS does not experience anything outside the basic awareness that he exists and that the universe does also. The precise mechanism for this attribute would be similar to gravitational influence.
If you are basing a God concept on the lack of any necessary survival traits it seems there is no need for this God to have any form of awareness.
How many various facets of reality pass through our sensory perceptors everyday, peripherially speaking, that we are aware of, but pose no threat to our continued existence?
You want to arbitrarily add awareness into the mix of your God construct. Seems no different then then wanting to add “self-awareness” or memory to such an entity.
I chose awareness, over memory and other more complex facets of our consciousness, because I believe it represents the baseline dividing point between animate and inanimate matter. I’m trying not to duplicate the theistic error in correctly reading complexity in nature and assuming therefore something even more complex, or super complex must be responsible. Something that was responsible, assuming this to be the case, would likely have to be something that represents the baseline simpleness or least common denominator…see what I mean? From that point forward, natural attributes of the universe itself gets the remainder of the credit.
You can imagine a God to your personal specifications. That’s what men have done in the past and likely will continue to do so. You call it a “Theory” however to my understanding a theory needs to have a method of testing and verification at least implied. How do you plan to test this God theory?
Considering that if it is not testable, you are free to imagine a God of any attributes you are willing to dream up.
And this is a valid criticism. Have you considered that the most prized cosmological theory of modern times is the big bang theory that allegedly originates in a singularity, and that the relevant points of inquiry into what this singularity must have been are all equally untestable? I am basing all of my terms in refernce to the universe from many of those same theories. Some I agree with, others I agree with in part, and others still I find almost ridiculous. I am drinking from the same wider body of knowledge as you in theorizing OMS. Everything I’ve postulated in this theory can be supported either by reference to credible naturalistic theories or inferred from them. Instead of a singularity I am postulating OMS and attempting to define him and his relationship to reality.
Personally I am not an atheist however, you want to create a God that is palatable to the secular paradigm of the universe?
And this, I think, is the clearest expression of the problem everyone herein seems to be having with this theory. It is a basic misunderstanding caused entirely by my use of the term “god” in this theory. Let me state most emphatically that I am not trying to devise a new god. That is not the purpose of this theory at all. I explained in an earlier response why I chose to call this the god theory. It has zilch to do with promoting another theistic version of a deity. As I explained at the outset, I am seeking to devise a UNIFICATION theory of everything. A theory that draws all other valid theories into a central singularly foundational whole. There is a disticnt difference bewteen inventing a new god and devising an explanation for reality as we experience.
You should understand regardless of your desire for an existent God, any conceptual God is unnecessary to explain the universe.
If you, and others herein, would be generous enough to understand I have no desire that any such god as has ever been postulated by any theist of any persuasion actually exist, you might actually come closer to fathoming what this theory is really trying to accomplish.
IOW a belief in God is an unnecessarily arbitrary complication to explaining the secular view of the universe.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
No one can tell you that you can’t make such an arbitrary choice of belief but at that point you could as well imagine the universe resides on the back of a herd of pink unicorns and based your paradigm of truth on their existence.
You’re preaching to the choir, brother. Amen…
Understand the Christian view is not based on imagination. It is based on the authority of personal testimony of others who claim to have experienced first hand objective evidence of God. Not something created from personal imagination.
It’s a Jewish fable. There is no authority derived from anecdotal evidence save that which some might self-proclaim.
Not to say that a person who chooses to disregard such personal testimony has an unreasonable position. However there is IMO a difference between using one’s personal imagination to create a God and relying on the authority of someone else’s objective experience.
Indeed. I re-iterate. In no way am I trying to invent another god. OMS requires no worship, obedience, allegiance, or sacrifice. No rituals, prayer, repentance, or fear. No atheist ever need feel he/she has to convert, change, doubt his/her worldview, or sacrifice his/her intellectual integrity to test, consider or rationally agree with any or all of the postulates claimed in this theory. It isn’t about a god but about a foundation for reality based on the best of our naturalistic methods and empirical observations. If it turns out to be very close to the truth no atheist need ever consider changing his/her worldview as a result. The god aspect of it is as harmless to both theist and atheist alike, as a hummingbird.