Is it True to Call God Intelligent?

[SQAAD]

I've had a non-dual discussion with a friend of mine. He is also into non-duality.

Anyways as the conservation went further along he concluded to the point that we cannot call God anything. We cannot call him even intelligent because there is nothing to contrast 'him' with.

The only meaning intelligence has is by constrasting it with stupidity he said.

I disagreed with him. My claim was that God is infinitely intelligent as an Absolute , with no opposite. I said that there is only Intelligence.

 His position was that we cannot call God any names and we might aswell call 'him' infinitely stupid. 

I believe he is wrong. What do you guys think? Any opinions?

Edited May 17, 2021 by SQAAD

[Mason Riggle]

@SQAAD I guess, start by defining 'Intelligent' for us.   

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. - Wikipedia

IMHO, qualities like 'intelligence' can't really be described as 'infinite'.   'Infinity', for me, is rather meaningless.  I might say, 'Size is infinite', but I wouldn't mean 'size is really really big'.. I just mean that size has no constraints, and is relative.  Big only has meaning in relation to small.  The Moon is big compared to me, small compared with the Sun.   Something with 'infinite size' is just 'incomprehensible'.. it's the same as something with 'no size'. 

So yeah, Intelligence is a relative human construct.  Is God intelligent? IDK, is God big? Well, it's not really a question that makes sense. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[SQAAD]

@Mason Riggle

8 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@SQAAD I guess, start by defining 'Intelligent' for us.   



IMHO, qualities like 'intelligence' can't really be described as 'infinite'.   'Infinity', for me, is rather meaningless.  I might say, 'Size is infinite', but I wouldn't mean 'size is really really big'.. I just mean that size has no constraints, and is relative.  Big only has meaning in relation to small.  The Moon is big compared to me, small compared with the Sun.   Something with 'infinite size' is just 'incomprehensible'.. it's the same as something with 'no size'. 

Intelligence for me is how the Universe works perfectly, seamlessly without any errors or bugs in it.

It is obvious for me that God is infinitely intelligent meaning that 'he' has the capacity to create whole planets and galaxies that work perfectly. It is not just some random stuff.

Edited May 17, 2021 by SQAAD

[Mason Riggle]

The problem here is that we have no reference point to compare 'how the Universe is working' with. 

What is a Universe that works IMPERFECTLY like? 

[Consilience]

By intelligence I think we could define it as an infinite number of parts and wholes, an infinite field of distinctions, all seamlessly working together. Flawlessly working together. Both positions, labeling it as intelligent, or indescribable, are both "valid." Notice though, that the intelligence we typically attribute to the human mind is happening at a meta level with the structure of reality. Reality is enormously "intelligent" in that in every extendable direction, there are parts and wholes all inextricably interconnected, seamlessly functioning together without error, mistake, or imperfection. It is literally impossible to describe one facet of reality without considering the whole of reality. To describe any part at the highest level, we must consider the "that which it is not." The "that which it is not," however, is inextricably linked to that which we are describing, yet does not break or negate the distinction, nor the inextricability. Further, the "that which it is not" is not only inextricable from the point of view of the whole, but is in co-creation with the part we are considering similar to how the a computer screen necessarily creates communication exchange over the internet despite being NOT the communication. Notice the infinite chain of holism here though; the computer screen and communication is just the beginning of this infinite web of causality. 

Yes there is no reference for even considering the possibility that reality is "dumb." There is no reference point for something other than infinite intelligence which is why it is completely valid to just not say anything about it. Yet, when the ego mind is removed, and we are contemplating reality within a state of "non-dual awareness," so to speak, we will inevitably see the inseparability of all facets of reality, that "not-two" is precisely infinite intelligence. If intelligence where indeed infinite, there could only be what is as it is right now. What is, is right now what it is, precisely because if the source of it where anything other than infinitely intelligent, it would not be what it is in this moment. Therefore, because this moment is exactly as it is, it MUST be an expression of infinite intelligence. The "logic" here to explain infinite intelligence is entirely self referential, a strange-loop, and cannot be expressed using linear language. At some point, the mind must fully grasp the strange loop as itself, fully, and wholly. At some point, the mind will 'understand' that at every level, scale, position, distinction, there resides the echo of infinity, of every other part of reality.

Yet seeing this is impossible with the ego mind, and further, it is impossible to gain from a meditative state of deep absorption, samadhi, cessation, satori. This understanding requires that the mind be functional, but functional in a way which transcends the limited programing modern society has drilled into our minds through our eduction system, social systems, government systems, and the larger contexts we collectively agree upon as "reality." Make no mistake though, with each breath we draw, we find the intelligence of life, reality, God, pulsing through the body and beyond. 

You will not find this stuff without a radically opened mind. You will not find this stuff without a radically curious mind. Even becoming conscious of yourself as God, or transcending suffering as an Arhat, does not guarantee one grasps this level of seeing. Infinite intelligence is a structural understanding of reality, not reality itself, yet it could be none other than reality itself. Tricky tricky. 

[SQAAD]

@Mason Riggle

11 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

The problem here is that we have no reference point to compare 'how the Universe is working' with. 

What is a Universe that works IMPERFECTLY like? 

I can imagine in my head a Universe that doesn't work, meaning it has no trees, no humans, no animals, no earth, no water, no art, no music and etc.

[Ryan R]

@SQAAD

I've had this talk many times because while God is seldom mentioned in some of my circles I insist to my friends that the Universe is Intelligent. A claim to which they often scoff. Then I simply ask them if they consider themselves at all intelligent. They never fail to answer yes and that makes my point and concludes the argument.

Incidentally this is an excellent way to drive the point home and open great conversation with rational materialists as to how they are the Universe and not separate from it as they so often surprisingly have never before considered. 

Your non-dual friend should have at least some concept that he is God, the Universe, You, Albert Einstein, and every intelligent agent that ever seemingly lived, and If he believes himself to be at all intelligent, that Intelligence is the (terribly dumbed down in his case, lol) Intelligence of God on evident display. 

[SQAAD]

@Ryan R

21 hours ago, Ryan R said:

@SQAAD

 

Your non-dual friend should have at least some concept that he is God, the Universe, You, Albert Einstein, and every intelligent agent that ever seemingly lived, and If he believes himself to be at all intelligent, that Intelligence is the (terribly dumbed down in his case, lol) Intelligence of God on evident display. 

His position is that it's not accurate to call God any names whatsoever because of non-duality and because every concept collapses.

But i disagree with him. Let's imagine that God is just pure ''white'' .  I understand that ''white'' gets all its meaning from everything that is non-white. White is constrasted against everything that is non-white.

Nevertheless i think that in my scenario where God is just 'white' it would be appropriate to call him 'white'. The color would remain the same no matter how we called it. We could call it whatever but the color of God would not change.

Same is for intelligence. Intelligence is all there is. It is like height. We can say that we lack height (we're short) or have too much height (we're tall) but still height is the case.

I could not get him to agree with me on that. It seems to me that he doesn't really appreciate what God is.. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by SQAAD

[BipolarGrowth]

You and your friend are both correct. 

[Ryan R]

3 hours ago, SQAAD said:

@Ryan R

His position is that it's not accurate to call God any names whatsoever because of non-duality and because every concept collapses.

But i disagree with him. Let's imagine that God is just pure ''white'' .  I understand that ''white'' gets all its meaning from everything that is non-white. White is constrasted against everything that is non-white.

Nevertheless i think that in my scenario where God is just 'white' it would be appropriate to call him 'white'. The color would remain the same no matter how we called it. We could call it whatever but the color of God would not change.

Same is for intelligence. Intelligence is all there is. It is like height. We can say that we lack height (we're short) or have too much height (we're tall) but still height is the case.

I could not get him to agree with me on that. It seems to me that he doesn't really appreciate what God is.. 

@SQAAD

I read you are from an Athens. If you and your friend are from The Athens then surely you are familiar with the "Logos" of the ancient Greek and less ancient Christian worlds. This divine reason or logic responsible for the creation and continuity of the cosmos that is at One in all relative reality even as it monistically transcends relative reality, the Logos is active as spirit and reason always in the Now, the Absolute Intelligence of the Universe, the Mind that is and of God.

It's a brilliant, useful, and truthful concept this divine Logos that I largely subscribe to. It is a concept that exists in a similar fashion in various wisdom traditions as philosophy or theology from many diverse cultures, yet it is always a concept when I venture from Being It into expressing It.

I could spend a long human lifetime, a hundred Earth years, studying and describing the Intelligence of God and yet I would not begin to do it justice. Will my descriptions be wholly accurate? No, of course not. Will my descriptions be more accurate than if I completely denied the Logos altogether? Yes, and only slightly so considering the impossibility of describing Infinite Intelligence from a seemingly limited form in limited space-time.

So you see your friend is arguably correct in an asinine semantics word-games sort of  way, but clearly incorrect from the Awareness of Being the Logos. Again, this really is not complicated. Is the creature your friend imagines himself to be intelligent to any degree? If yes then he has direct cognition (also intelligence, and now we are going meta as well), qualitative emperical evidence, the best standard of proof personally available to him, for the existence of the Intelligence of God regardless of how he chooses to label it.

[Nahm]

@SQAAD

Your friend is correct. Self realized. Spot on. (So to speak). “Infinite intelligence”, and even ‘not knowing’ is just pointing, Mystery unto ‘itself’. 

Make. A. Dreamboard. ‘Peeps’. 

[SQAAD]

@Nahm

3 hours ago, Nahm said:

@SQAAD

Your friend is correct. Self realized. Spot on. (So to speak). “Infinite intelligence”, and even ‘not knowing’ is just pointing, Mystery unto ‘itself’. 

Make. A. Dreamboard. ‘Peeps’. 

I believe Infinite Intelligence is all there is and it is appropriate to call God that. Yes God is  a mystery but 'his' intelligence cannot be denied just by the fact of how everything perfectly works without a single glitch.