Godlorica

upsilon,
life is easier with a god
 

a. I know that I have a limited mind and nature/existence.
b. God has an omniscient/omnipotent/infinite nature/existence.

If God encompasses all (exists infinitely), and I exist as a part of God, we must conclude one of two possibilities:

- I have an infinite nature and have the same qualities as the aforementioned God. This contradicts the first part of the premise.

- I have a limited nature, so God as defined above cannot exist, except in a limited form. This contradicts the second part of the premise.

As much as I know anything, I know that I cannot currently exist infinitely (or any of the other qualities), due to the definition of a concept we cannot understand, but yet know based on what we don't know.

Based on what I know, I must conclude that because of my limited existence, God too, must have a limited nature, or not yet exist based on our conceptual definitions.

*poof*
 

is you is or is you aint
 

Universe Upsilon is the place to be. However, if no sentient being in Universe Upsilon has cause to believe in the God that does exist, wouldn't it be fair to say that the putative God of such a Universe would have to carry some of the blame? Imagine the "heaven" of such a Universe. Assuming the same rules apply as we "assume" here (that is, only by possessing a faith is it possible to enter Heaven), then this God's heaven is empty. The feast is set, but no one is able to attend. Not my kind of God, that.
 

Omega. who would want to live with people that belive we are the only life in a universe?
 

Brian is mistaken. The number 1, while a part of infinity, has a definate finite state.

As for me, I'm with quantum insight.
 

I am
 

We're living in the Omega universe right now. Gods from older cultures have been explained, so what is it about our current views of God that make them so final? It should follow that present God should someday be explained, and the God that replaces it will be explained in the future as will it’s replacement be explained in the future future.
 

Upsilon is similar to our universe in that most people either believe there is no god or follow a religion which misleads them as to His/Her/It's true nature. It is the best of the two universes because all will work out well in the end.
 

Upsilon is the universe where god is, so that's where I want to be also.
Even if I don't believe in god it's ok because i'm just living in ignorance and the possibility exists I might change.
All athiests live in Upsilon, however they think they are in Omega.
 

Faith in a religion (God) is based on Fear, at least for those of us with a parochial education. I'd pick the second universe
 

Although not necessarily a believer myself, I prefer to live in a universe where people believe in god... I usually think of these people as "useful idiots", but their quaint beliefs in a vengeful and judging god keep their baser instincts in check, thereby making it a somewhat safer world. A place where no one believed in god, where instincts ruled, might be a true jungle. So let the people believe in god all they want, so long as it provides me and mine with a modicum of safety.
 

I believe taht Omega is the current state of things, although if one assumes that in your scenario everyone believes in the same god with the same metaphysocal system thene there would eb some harmony achieved. However, I think that once an accord was reached on thise questions all exploration would cease and that can't be good.

No, I prefer Upsilon because if the deity were real and the deity imbued the universe with its own intent then the inhabitants' ignorace of the deity would be part of that design. Therefore, a free exploration of infinite possibilities would not only be possible but also justified in the eyes of God.
 

Ignorance is bliss.
Or in Upsilon when stuff happens that can't be explained then nobody will care cause there isn't any GOD.(Convient easy Explanation)

Uhhh sort of like this universe.
 

Upsilon would be my choice. If both realities contain your standard homo sapien that is normally found here, I'd prefer they would be responsible for their own actions instead of "Because, god says so". I feel quite certain that simply offering lip service to god isn't enough. I shudder to think of what kind of hell awaits those who pound the bible and make god out to be some sort of prick.
jammit
 

My God is bigger than your God.
 

I would choose to live in a universe where god existed, even in anonymity. The spirit that animates human existence longs for god even when they can't believe. The universe that I live in believes there is a god but its looking outside itself for its manifestation. The paradigm needs to be on a smaller scale. We need to actualize that our universe is as small as our personal experience. Surely we can realize god under such a magnifying glass, if god exists.

It seems, however, that most folks are more comfortable visualizing an external god that they strive to know, please and appease. This schema is based on the system of hierarchy which is not a natural tendency but needs to be socialized into acceptance. Consider a world view based on Ken Wilber's Holonic Kosmos theory--nested paradigms, each a part of the whole even if not part of each other. The moral of the story is that we are each a part of god and god is a part of each of us. Next Question: What is god?
 

"As flies to wanton Boys
we are to th' Gods:
they kill us for their Sport"
I say Omega, ignorance is bliss and all that. Also, at least, on top of everygthing else, we won't be the victims of the whim of a God.
 

Upsilon

No people believing in God means people will look for alternatives to explain the seemingly irrational, thereby creating their own "God" : natural elements, money, sportsmen, etc.

Free thinkers may still decide there is a God or choose not to follow one of the "created" ones.
This is much more liberty than the totalitarist universe Omega.

The fact that God exist or not is irrelevant, provided people cannot detect its presence (i.e. God does not act on the people nor on their environment).

Most people will probably choose for Upsilon, albeit not for the same reason as the ones stated above.
 

There's always gonna be someone who says 'neither'. Also, since the word 'God' has no referents-read your general semantics, how is it possible to even define these universes? And how is the proof of the universe with a God, but no awareness of God, actually proven? appears to me those poor slobs aren't going to do it. Maybe another universe? Perhaps the question should be rephrased slightly-"Is awareness preferaable, if it places severe limits on conciousness?"
 

Omega

Faith in a god isn't a bad thing, as long as it means peace, love, and understanding. Choice to believe should be important too.

When it turns into violence and ignorance, that's when I would wish I lived in Upsilon.

I'll say Omega, but maybe I mean a spirit-minded world, but with a religion that doesn't involve killing at all.
 

I would rather live with rational people, so I will take the world of atheists.

And, if this world must have a god, an anonymous god, then it would obviously be the best of all possible gods -- an unobtrusive one.
 

I would prefer to live in Upsilon, where a Divine being is not recognized. Primarily because that reality is less sad, to me. I pity beings who desperately need a god but cannot have it.

Many of the previous posts seem to presume that Upsilon is populated with "rational" beings. I would respond by suggesting neither universe is populated by any rational beings. A rational being accepts the logic presented to them. To consider Upsilon, we must accept that God exists there, and the beings residing there are oblivious to it. The question posed does not specify whether the God(s) of Upsilon make themselves evident to the inhabitants of that universe, but I would suggest that is part of the functional definition of a God. To ignore such evidence is not rational act. Therefore neither Omegans nor Upsilonians are rational.

I also reject any argument which suggests that we now live in the Omega universe. If reality and truth is mutable enough to prevent us from knowing the exact location and state of an electron, or whether light is a wave or a particle, then I would suggest that there is room for beings who accept Gods into their lives and those who do not, both with some claim to rationality and truth.

I do not pretend to know the answer. I live my life in a manner that makes me happy, and accept no one else's cosmology with respect to what I term my spirituality.

Some Talmudic arguments support this way of thinking: What does it matter if God exists, be nice to people because it is the right thing to do. If and when I meet God, I can answer only for decisions I made, so I try to make good decisions. Making good decisions with consideration for others, is also just a good rule of thumb for getting along with people. So, what does it matter if God exists?

Happy Solstice, all.
 

depends on the definition of "god".
 

I believe in Santa Claus and:
WE HAVE ENOUGH RELIGION TO MAKE US HATE, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE US
LOVE ONE ANOTHER
 

The very question is posed within a dualistic framework (i.e. either... or...).
"God" (the divine) would exist as infinite, thus be outside of the framework of duality.
Since we are inside the framework of duality, we cannot comprehend "God" and since the question only allws for "either...or..." and not "both...and..." then the question itself does not allow for the infinite and is therefore moot.
 

we will all find out the truth one day. meanwhile her is a plug for my site......
The SS Richard Montgomery is a time-bomb waiting for a terrorist to give Britain its first real tsunami and, maybe, worse. This film shows what can happen when a government conceals something very dangerous from its own people.

Fact: The US explosives carrier Richard Montgomery sank in the Thames Estuary in August 1944. It was loaded with 15000 tons of explosive munitions. The Admiralty decided to leave the wreck and its dangerous cargo undisturbed. The wreck lies just a few hundred yards offshore between an oil refinery and the several towns. Southend on Sea is just a couple of miles away on the other side of the Thames estuary. Rumours about the ship and its cargo have circulated in these towns ever since. Denials have been issued by ministers in the House of Commons in response to MPs questions about the presence on board of biological, chemical and gas warheads. Nevertheless, rumours persist that the real reason the wreck was not made safe was because of the existence of ‘dirty weapons’ on board.
http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com
(copy and paste into your browser)
 

logic within these parameters always leads to the same thing-
paradox.
that's why the ancients name god "the great mystery," beyond language, name, and proof.
we live in-between omega and upsilon. it's a beautiful place, and i love the light at my window.

-b
 

People need God so they don't have to wonder about things which have no obvious answer, as I've written about in my own blog. God becomes the convenient excuse for everything, so we need not deal with reality.

As stated in an earlier comment, life is easier with God... now you know why.

There will never be a universe in which God exists but no one believes it, but if there were such a chimera, I would choose that universe.

Why? Without belief in God, people *might* choose to act rationally and eschew destruction of the environment and other insane behavior that religion promotes. At the same time, the one thing God actually provides - a bigger purpose in existence - would still be there even though people wouldn't realize it.
 

a world where it was believed there was no God would be one without moral benchmarks and probably an unpleasant one - who says God is incharge of just one universe?
 

Most wars was initiated from problems with ressourses (land, power, whater, oil...). Most war-leaders are knowing this. But for soltiers, the truth was different: the leaders used goods to explain the needs of the wars. At this point, we have two different universes of thinking. (Try to find a expamle. It is easy).

If you imagine a godless world (in the mind of the peoples), nobody whould fight for god. But whould every one die for the ressourse of someone else? Not a easy situation for leaders. Not so much wars.

All people whould like to have a good live. But is live with wars a good live? Who wants to die young without the possibility to find a glory place in heaven ? Without heaven (in peoples mind), not so much peoples whould risk her live.

A very bad situation for war-leaders.
 

Much prefer to believe in God. Eating Darwin by 'js_vp' is particularly fascinating. Are we not responsible for our creations?
 

I would choose the universe where God does not exist, but everyone believes he does. The sum total of contentedness would be greater in that universe where people would have a sense of the divine even if there was none. I cannot imagine a universe so sad that it's creator could not have the benefit of the faith of it's creation. This does not make me a creationist. I'm just an empath.
 

i would ratheir live in a world witch a god, anyone should want god to exist. u should care about your god. dont get affencive but if u had a son would u want to exist rathier u knew he existed or not? think about it
 

If nobody believed in God, why would we hurt each other?
 

I believe we already live in Omega... People would rather go with an idea than the truth. Just look at the love lives of alot of people. I would rather live in a world that isn't so centered on god. It's either there or not, doesn't really matter which.