Called pocket works, unless it is straight in...

I'm not that picky...

Always call the 'money balls' works...

Texas express...

Push after break...

Ball-in-hand(anywhere) after a foul, including a foul on break...

No money... takes all the 'fun' out of it...

I 'bout got killed over that at 22 years old...

Ok - Texas Express, which version. Around here they call that last pocket, but in Chicago it's something else.

Everything else is great, absolutely ball in hand, a skilled player never sinks the que ball and really good player, can make a defense shot look like a near miss. OH DARN! (ok actually I would most likely say - WTF?) Becasue,I'm not THAT good,

Do you have the patience for a game of 14-1 (straight pool?)

I love straight pool... not very good at a 'defensive' break though...

Texas around here is no spotting up balls, except the 9, ball in hand, push after break... all else is equal...

9 footer... if possible

Bar sized tables are way too easy to run when one gets 'hot'...

Uh... I dunno nothing about missing on purpose and hooking the opponent... I toldja... I 'bout got killed...

Ok, now that we have decided on the rules for a pool match - back to topic.

Like Dragoness, I was sorta waiting around to see how this thing developed.

I'm happy you decided to loose the 'attributes' phrase. Its misleading because every single, identifiable, force or physical material can be assigned 'attributes'through examinatin. However, that examination is information, processed, through our senses, and we can not, assume nor is it likely, that god would have 'experience' with such senses.

Also in a forum such as this, with this particular topic, 'attributes' will undoubtedly take 'human' (individual, entity) characteristics and THAT will get us off topic.

SO WE HAVE:
God – (def) The indivisible a priori substance wholly comprised of all possibilities of ethereal and material existence.

It is not clear to me why the word 'indivisible' is used. There are two implications the presence of that word can have.

1. That god is incapable of being anything other than self contained (can not be divided).
2. That god can, in fact be divided, but but only if/when a remainder is the outcome.

Is it the objective to argue which of these is a godly 'attribute'? If not, please explain the use of the word indivisible in the definition.

Di:

Pool will be later, yes!!...




Both apply... in essence... the 'illusion of division' exists with a 'known' material existence, yet it has never truly been separate, as shown by it's 'return' to the remainder...

This was an almost perfect 'gem' IMO, which 'abra' refined and proposed.

THEN, creative rejected 'abra's suggestion, to which 'abra' counter argued with additionnal explanations, to which 'creative' counter-counter-proposed the following:


to which, inexpicably, 'abra' replied :

I certainly would not dare speak for you 'abra', but your acquiescence to 'creative's latest 'def', robs the bone-marrow of all the hard work and potential rich premise you had built so far.

Here is what I mean.

By sheer intuition, 'abra' delivered a track from which this discussion could unfold, and thereby reveal fundamental distinctions, which were languaged into thinking structures thousands of years ago by our most famous 'greek predecessors'. Yes, they have raised and thought this question through way before us, and since then, many more have raised FOR us!!!

We would be silly to ingnore their wisdom wouldn't we?!?!?

Anyhow, the crux of the total thinking track on the matter, has much more to do with the angle you come from, or the dialectic perspective you adopt in addressing the question, then the question itself.

Let's face it, we're not really going to answer the question, now are we ???

But posing the question remains of tremendous merit and value.

Perspective then!!! What 'abra's intuition and proposed def. have in common with the collective philosophical thinking on the matter of 'god's existence, is the matter of 'essence'!!!

Moreover, it is the order of priority we will give in adopting a perspective founded on 'essence' rather than material/physical that is key.

Intuitively, from the start and through further posts, 'abra' clearly was threading his cloth from a perspective where 'essence' precedes material/physical manifestations.

Agreeing on perspective in any human endeavor is important. In a philosophical discussion, PERSPECTIVE IS EVERYTHING!!!

Philosophy is not so much 'WHAT ONE THINKS', but rather, '... FROM WHAT PERSPECTIVE ONE THINKS what it is that one thinks...'.

Philosophy cannot prove or disprove the existence of 'god'. But philosophy can help question the more exact nature of the relevance and importance of the question for human beings.

Socrates, Plato, right through to Kieerkegard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, have laid the foundations, and have contributed some inescapable 'keys' to approach this eternal human question of 'god's existence.

One of those keys, is the perspective that 'essence' preceedes 'presence'. Essence preceedes all manifestion in the 'perceptible' material/physical dimension (always from a human perspective; the only possible perspective for humans).

This is the perspective which demonstrates the 'being' of human beings not as an 'individual-physical existence' first, but rather as the manifestion of immaterial and indivisible 'essence'.

This order of fundamental perspectives is crucial. Indivisible and immaterial 'essence' comes first, and from it physical/material potentialities.

Thus, 'potentiality' belongs to 'essence', whereas 'possibilities' belong to the material/physical dimension, as a manifestation of the indivisible and immaterial 'potentiality'.

This, IMO, is what ties the philosophical and scientific dialogue that 'abra' was presenting.

Ironically, one cannot access the Quantum view of the Universe without first dropping the still contemporary 'Newtonian physical/material/separated' thinking structures of our day, and then re-learn or adopt the thinking structures as presented by our phylosophical ancestors.

"... 'being' (with which we all are ONE) is first and foremost 'essence', and for that there is 'indivisible' and immaterial evidence everywhere, thus 'god' immaterial and indivisible!!!"

To 'abra's near perfect version IMO, I would humbly suggest removing 'substance', and replacing it by 'essence', for a 'working formula' with mileage!!!

The net would then become :

"... The a priori 'essence' of all material and ethereal existence (everything/nothing), completely independent from initial cause and consisting of (the) 'potentiality(ies) (to create)' every possible attribute and/or affection thereof.."


Try it, YOU'LL LIKE IT!!!

Test it on 'redykeulous' following statements :



As I would argue in an army of two (at least) with 'abra', 'god' only exists as 'essence' EVERYWHERE AND NOWHERE. So of course it exists in #2 also, except that in #2, human's separated 'ego's distortion short circuits its 'essence'. It becomes a 'human perversion' of a FALSE GOD, no longer whole.

That is what I denounce in my way. And it is what I believe Abra denounces in his way.

Why would you opt for a 'perverted and essence less god' out of fear and egotistical concerns, when this very 'ego' based concern robs you, and shortcircuits the already/always connection with ALL/NOTHING/GOD/life/universe, etc.!!!

The thread which runs through the way...


It takes 'life' to create 'life'...


Perhaps the lack of 'essence' was Spinoza's only flaw then?

EDIT:

I dunno... it takes a little deeper thought for me... but...

I believe 'essence' may be proven to be necessary through axioms and would be more readily accepted than a presupposition...

You hit the nail right square on the head there Voil. That’s exactly where it’s at.



Yes, and this kind of thinking wears on you after a while when you study a lot of quantum physics. It begins to actually become ‘intuitively reasonable’.



Again I agree. There are significant differences in perspective between ‘substance’ and ‘essence’. It’s difficult for us, as physical creatures to make this distinction and genuinely understand it ‘intuitively’ because we are so accustomed to thinking in terms of ‘substance’.

I tried to make this distinction once before (probably close to a year ago now), when I was discussing meditation and letting go of ‘perceptions’.

Is it possible to still ‘perceive’ when there is no stimuli? In other words, is perception, nothing more than the response to stimuli, or is there something more to it than that?

My answer is that perception can indeed exist without stimuli. In other words, my conclusion was that our underlying ‘essence’ perceives even when there is no physical world around us. No stimuli.

One example I gave back then was the ‘white light’ that is experienced in meditation. Clearly it is ‘light’, but not the same kind of light that exists in the physical world (i.e. photons exciting retinas). Clearly the ‘white light’ in meditation is a light that has no ‘substance’. It is the ‘essence’ of light. A non-material ‘light’.

Typing into forums posts is not the best method of communication for the depth required to get into these kinds of conversations. It’s simply too cumbersome. But the point is that ‘essence’ can ‘perceive’ without ‘substance’ and without ‘stimuli’.

So this would be the nature of ‘god’ (or the essence of the entity we call ‘the universe’)

Precisely how to phrase that as a definition I’m not sure. I just know what it means to me.

And yes, this fundamental ‘essence’ does have the ability to perceive! Perhaps that should be part of the definition. But CreativeSoul will probably argue that the ability to perceive gives god a ‘personification’!

Perhaps ‘god’ does have a ‘personified’ aspect of sorts. That doesn’t automatically mean that it has to become a dictator that dictates over all of its own manifestations.

Somehow this essence that ‘becomes’ our physical universe has the ability to prevent its right hand from knowing what its left hand is doing. And it is in that division of itself that gives rise to the mystery of life.

Although, that division isn’t the same as being ‘divided’. In other words, it doesn’t fall into two entirely separate ‘things’. It simply prevents its right hand from knowing what its left is doing and thus gives rise to mystery.

So it’s going to ultimately be a lot more than just a ball of energy.

Ok... now you people have me thinking...

After considerable thought and deliberation expressed concern(s) and/or perspective(s), I have also come to the conclusion that the term 'essence' it is an important part of the definition.

It would not require a personification.

The term 'create' is still problematic...

Thank you all for the input, and I hope it will continue...

I propose this...



The a priori essence of all material and ethereal existence completely independent from initial cause and consisting of infinite potentiality and possibility.


Whatcha think?

I think this:

The a priori essence of all material and ethereal existence completely independent from initial cause and consisting of infinite potentiality.

Well, if we’re genuinely going to own up to everything that bothers us with the definition thus far, then I must confess I still have a couple of concerns.

First, I’m not happy with the words consisting of because to me they imply that this would be the sum total of the properties and/or abilities of the essence. (i.e. “all that it consists of”)

In my mind this would not be the final definition of ‘god’, but merely a foundational definition. Clearly this a priori essence (i.e. “god”) is going to consist of more than just the properties being addressed thus far. For this reason I would change the words consisting of to having. In other words this a priori essence has potentiality. It doesn’t necessarily consist of potentiality. At least in that it’s not the entirety of its essence.

My second concern is the use of the word infinite. Why assume that it’s potentiality is infinite and what does that even mean exactly? Well, I would suggest that one meaning is that it has unlimited potentiality. And that can be taken several differnet ways.

It can be unlimited in its quantity of potentiality, meaning there is no limit on how much material and ethereal existence it can ‘create, become, sustain, or cause to exist’.

Or it can be unlimited in its quality of potentiality, meaning there is no limit on what kind of material and ethereal existence it can ‘create, become, sustain, or cause to exist’.

Moreover, do we really have any reason to believe god is indeed infinite in either of these “abilities or powers”?

If not, then why make any assumption regarding the extent of its potentiality?

Thus we end up with,…

The a priori essence of all material and ethereal existence completely independent from initial cause and having potentiality.

This is a nice place to start. A foundation with which to begin considerations. However it's certainly not a complete definition. This a priori essence may have other “properties” that we will later realize it must have in order to go about “creating, becoming, sustaining, or causing material and ethereal things to exist”

I feel that we are inevitably going to need to endow this a priori essence with an innate ability to perceive.

The reason that I say this, is because if we don’t endow the initial a priori essence with this ability, then we are ultimately going to need to give this ability to some of the material and ethereal things that it creates.

And this of course will give rise to the following question,…

Can the ability to perceive be ‘created’ or ‘come into existence’ by the potentiality of the a priori essence? Or must the ability to perceive be an innate characteristic of the a priori essence?

Translating for the laymen – “Are we just a bag of atoms or something more?”

I’ll confess up front that I have given this question much thought and I’m inclined to favor that the ability to perceive is innate to the a priori essence and that it cannot be created via potentiality. Don’t ask me for a proof of this. All I can offer are what I feel are compelling reasons why it must be so, but those reasons may potentially only be compelling to me.

However, I believe that as you move forward with this definition and begin to explore just how this a priori essence does its magic with its potentiality, you’re going to discover that you’ll need to endow this a priori essence with some qualities of being the magician.

Or to put that another way, you are going to come to the ultimate realization that all forms of material and ethereal things are ultimately nothing more than manifestations of this a priori essence, and therefore any perception that goes on is ultimately perceived by the a priori essence. (i.e. God is omniscient and perceives all)

Either way you look at it, the a priori essence will ultimately need to do the “perceiving”.

At least this has been my personal conclusion. Your potentiality may vary.

Potentiality includes the possibility of 'becoming'... which indeed fits either way...

I am in complete agreement with this term's use, it broadens, as does the term 'infinite'. Below is my argument for using the term 'infinite'.

'Consisting of infinite potentiality'...

As I understand it it...

infinite (meaning without beginning or end, extending beyond any measure)

Both 'infinite' and 'unlimited' are indeed not 'contained', however only 'infinite' is without beginning or end(without initial cause... without determined end.)

If anything, I would consider removing the 'independant from initial cause' clause...



James you suggested this:



Independant from initial cause implies no beginning... if there is no beginning than one must also say there is no end...

infinite says both...

By leaving out 'infinite'... is the containment of the concept. 'God' is contained...

It is contradictory thought to... one hand to refuse to use the phrase consisting of infinite potentiality based upon the 'containment' issue claimed to be implied in the term 'consisting', only later to use the other hand and leave out the term 'infinite'. That deletion contains the potentiality.


Leaving out the term infinite would lesson the validity of the claim by reduction.

If the claim is made that a whole can be greater than the total sum of all it's parts, then what is wrong with the term infinite?

Leave out 'independant of initial cause'... it is redundant with the use of infinite potentiality...



Here's a a little 'different' perspective...



The infinite potentiality of the a priori essence of all existence.

I played pool online....sucked at it.

Kat

I played pocket pool once,... or twice.

I suggested...

The infinite potentiality of the a priori essence of all existence.

The endless possibilities of creation's a priori essence.

Belonging to creation...

For without creation, what is 'God'?

I personally believe that if there is such a thing as 'God'... 'God' is everything that could be, has been and ever was.

Before creation this was also the case... 'God' was all that could be... through extension... and a no thing without it...

If you are all... everything... then you are nothing separate... without a measure of distinction...

How 'powerful' would 'God' be without relative measure?

Without creation's existence?

Please excuse me for cross-threading, but I was particularly intrigued by something that Funches had said in response to Kat in another thread. And I felt that it is actually applicable here,…



I think Funches question here is quite on spot.

If the answer is ‘no’ (to the question, “Does an intelligent designer require an intelligent designer), then for God’s sake someone please explain WHY damn it!

Well, I might have an explanation, but I’ll warn everyone ahead of time that they aren’t going to like it.

The answer is quite simple. It’s the question that’s complex.

So let’s look at the question again,…

“Does something that appears to be the result of Intelligent Design, need to have been created by an Intelligent Designer?”

The question begs for definitions! At least two of them,….

1. What does it mean to say that something appears to be of ‘Intelligent Design’?

and

2. What does it mean for a ‘Designer’ to be ‘Intelligent’?

Are these questions the same question, or are they entirely different?

In my picture of God, and the universe, these are two entirely different questions and they have two entirely differnet answers.

So let’s take them one at a time,…

1. What does it mean to say that something appears to be of ‘Intelligent Design’?

Well this one is pretty simple. This one is based on precisely the reason that we claim that the universe has been ‘created’ by Intelligent Design in the first place. It simply means that things within the universe seem to be made in ways that are consistent, and have properties that allow them to interact in complex ways with regular and dependable behavior.

That’s really all that ‘Intelligent Design’ really means when you get down to it. It simply means that there is ‘structure’ in the universe that is not chaotic and random. There is structure that can clearly interact in ways to produce even more structure that is not ‘random’. At least not ‘random’ based on human judgments. Clearly the structure is not totally chaotic. Whether or not it’s ‘random’ is a question that can lead to much debate since the very meaning of that word is not even well-defined in mathematical circles.

In any case, the bottom line is that we associate ‘non-chaotic structure’ with the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’.

As an aside,…

I think a lot of layman will misunderstand ‘Intelligent Design’ to mean that there is clearly a plan or blueprint which things are following. But this is totally naïve and incorrect. There is nothing about our universe that suggests that anything within it was pre-planned. That’s not what ‘Intelligent Design’ means on a philosophical level. We have absolutely no reason to believe that human beings, or any other object in this universe was pre-planned. All that ‘Intelligent Design’ says is that the complexity of the universe seems to imply more order than would have occurred by pure random chance.

So let’s be clear that the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’ does not imply that there was any pre-planned blueprint associated with this. It simply means that the universe contains structure that is not entirely chaotic. That’s all it really means on a purely philosophic level.

Taking Note of the Previous Aside,…

With this in mind we must recognize that all we are saying here is that, for us, non-chaotic structure implies “intelligence”. In a very real way we are defining intelligence to be anything that has non-chaotic structure. This is necessarily the case if we want to claim that the universe appears to be of intelligent design. (i.e. The result of non-chaotic actions and/or constituents)

I think the mere fact that we have identified that the entire universe is made up of only a hand-full of elements (just slightly over 100 of them), and that these elements have consistent properties and interact with each other in consistent ways, we have established the fact that the universe non-chaotic at least in it’s constituents.

I’m not convinced that we need to show much more than that. I see no reason to imply or invoke any non-chaotic ‘behavior’ other than those due to the laws of the forces of nature that are already known.

A universe that is basically a soup of only about 100 consistently behaving elements would be more than likely to produce what we would call “Intelligent Structure’ just by pure chance after that simply because of it’s vast expanse.

We have observed that there are at least 70 sextillion stars just in the observable part of the universe.

That’s 70 thousand million million million stars (or rolls of the dice) that contain only about 100 elements on their faces. The probably that structure as complex as we see would evolved from that many rolls of the dice and that few combination of elements is actually quite good mathematically speaking.

In other words, given the constituents of the universe and it’s vast size the probably for something like a human being to arise is not all that far-fetched. It’s quite likely actually.

So now back to the question of interest,… “Would the Designer of this universe need to be Intelligent”?

Well that’s an interesting question that come back to the question of what is it that we are calling ‘Intelligent’?

Clearly we associate intelligence with ‘structure’. Whether it be the structure of the physical universe, or that structure of our own ‘logical thought processes’. Both of these things amount to nothing more than concepts of ‘structure’. One is a structure of ‘things’, the other is a structure of ‘thoughts’ AND those thoughts are even associated with the structured ordering of bits of knowledge. (i.e. ideas of individual concepts strung together in ways that we call logical)

So what would God be like?

Well, now we come to the definition that we are currently working on in this thread. What do we have so far (clearly an unfinished definition, but still let’s exam what we’ve got).



This was your latest offering, thus far.

We have an a priori essence of existence that has infinite potentiality.

Ah,… but does it have structure???

This is key!

Recall that our reasons for claiming that the universe is the creation of Intelligent Design really reduces to nothing more than a statement that it has non-chaotic structure. This is are only reason for claiming that it has Intelligent Design. If it didn’t have this non-chaotic structure we wouldn’t be here to pondering question!

But what about God? Does God have non-chaotic structure? For that matter, does God have any structure at all when in a rest state? (i.e. when it’s not becoming the universe?)

Does God have Intelligence? Well, if God has no structure when in a rest state, then there’s no need for intelligence there’s nothing to know. Knowledge is nothing more than the ordered and structured thoughts about non-chaotic structured systems. If there is no structured system, then there’s no need for knowledge and therefore no need (or even meaning) for the concept of intelligence.

Intelligence itself is a human concept!

When God (our a priori essence) is in a rest state there is no structure in anything and therefore no knowledge to ponder, and therefore no need for intelligence as we perceive it to be.

Thus God has no need for an Intelligent Designer because there’s nothing to design. When in the rest state, God has no structure. God only has potentiality which is beyond human comprehension.

This is the difference between the physical being, and spiritual being. Spiritual being is without form and structure. It’s beyond our comprehension. It has no need for an “Intelligent Designer” because there is nothing to design. It’s a structure-less state of being. A state of pure perception only with no need for logical thoughts. The very concept of logic implies that there is some structure to think about and analysis.

So there you have it. The essence of God defined in a rational non-delusional way!

Now can we go sailing?

Have you ever tried to learn another language as an adult?
Some very proficiant interpreters still translate in thier minds. To actually be fluent and thoughtless in speaking other languages, the language must be understood as it is spoken. The mental 'images' must match the sounds which would then eliminate the need to 'translate'.

Often when I think deeply, or when I reteat into my mind, there is a lack of vocabulary. So when attempting to speak on a topic I've considered 'deeply' I am at a loss to find the translation / the words that are the common communication of thoughts.

So I have watched this thread and, as always, I see many of my thought translated as you all hash them out. Now, somewhat, on a level akin to language, I would like to attempt to interject.

Remember that I may be searching for a way to explain my wordless thoughts, so I hope you will read with an open mind and patience.

Consider these things: a 'void' in space and time,

perhaps not unlike the warp of a block hole. Very massive, randomly sucking in and condensing "whatever" gets close. (a whale, mouth wide open as the sea water flows in, the plankton collecting at the throat as the cleared wather is flushed from the gill, of 'blow hole".)

an echo system - out of balance. 'Time' & 'Space' in chaos.
equate at physical level with a massive computer, running an automatic dianostic because an error is discovered. It runs searching for the sector causing the problem. Pure logic, find and correct the imbalance.

Detected - warp causing imbalance in the muti dimensional fabric that maintains all of 'Time' & 'Space'. The warp has condensed huge amounts of all the substance that maintained the balance. All that this warp has consumed must be returned to gain balance.

BIG BANG! CHAOS - as material is released. The 'overseer' THAT which uses pure logic to maintian the balance sees to the proper distribution of materials, to ebb the Chaos. Masses must be formed in such a way as to redistribute all the 'material' slowly, equally without further disruption to 'time' & 'space'. The 'seer' CREATES a universal echo system - planets, stars and to each is given 'attributes' as substance is separated and accounted for.

These attributes are scaled to produce a valid echo system within, on and surrounding each mass. Some of these masses (planets) consist of just the right attributes to, in alignment, with the 'universal' balance, to evolve life (as we understand it) Given enough time that eveloution produces a creature capable of awareness. But it is not aware of it 'substance' only of it physical being. It's sustance is an evelution that was required to create a universal 'balanced' echo system. A side event, if you will.

In these thoughts, THAT, which you are discussing as 'the creator' may not have intelligence in the way we discuss it, but rather IT IS the All of Everything and in ITs desire to continue it will use any logic necessary to maintain the balance of that which contains it, all the demenstions of time & space. A 'thing' that is self consistant, self maintaining, and it's only true awareness is of the SELF to which it must maintaing a balance to 'continue'.

Obsessivly, compulsivly, diagnosing, correcting with control that which maintains ITS continuance.

For this reason I thing Abra is more correct, not infinate but unlimited only because it is self subsistant. Not infinate because it's attributes are limited to what IT consists of - to us it may the ALL THAT IS, but to IT, there is no ALL, there is only balance within ITSELF.

Wow!

I made it through the chaos of Redy’s thoughts and actually came out the other side still coherent.

I think I understand your intuitive notions more than you might realize Di. And I would like to share something with you that very few people actually realize.

You mentioned on several occasions that this a priori essence (or God) will use logic to maintain equilibrium (or balance).



And here you say, any logic necessary to maintain the balance.

What many people are not aware of is that there are two distinctly differnet kinds of “logic”. And they truly are distinctly different.

Digital computers today use “Digital Logic”. But digital logic isn’t the only kind of logic available. In fact, when computers were first invented there were two differently types of computers,… Digital, and Analog. At one point in time people weren’t sure which type of computer would ‘take off”. It turns out that digital computers won the day. And now most people aren’t even aware that there are such things as analog computers.

Analog computers don’t use the same kind of ‘logic’ as digital computers do. Digital computers use ‘Thinking Logic” like we do. Digital computers compare things using IF – THEN statements. In other words, they compare to pieces of data (bit of knowledge) and ask a question about the comparison. That’s the IF part.

Now, IF the comparison is TRUE (meaning that it satisfies the attributes that are being compared) THEN the computer will do something. However, IF the comparison is FALSE (meaning that the compared attributes do not match up) THEN it will do something different.

A simply program I might write for my own brain,…. IF a woman is at my door THEN let her in ELSE slam the door shut! (slam the door on anything else)

When I run this program I open the door, if I see a woman I let her in. If I see anything else I slam the door in his face.

This kind of logic requires a cognitive recognition and comparison of things. It also requires a program (i.e. a list of IF/THEN instructions). This is how all digital computers work, and this is how our thinking works for the most part (but not completely)

The other kind of logic is Analog logic. With Analog logic there are no IF/THEN statements. There’s no need to any ‘program’ (at least not in the sense of instructions).

Analog Logic is more like human intuition or spontaneous reflex reaction. If my door is ‘hardwired’ with Analog Logic, then there is no need to ‘think’ about the problem. The door will just automatically open for women and automatically slam shut for anyone else. It doesn’t need to ‘think’ about it. It’s intuitively activated by the essence of what approaches the door.

This is actually possible to build electronically. Analog computers do exist, and are used in commercial equipment. We as human, also have an ‘analog aspect’ to our nature. Something we simply react without any need to ‘think’ about it it in a digital kind of way.

So God could actually be entirely ‘analog’ and not have any need to actually ‘think’ about anything in the digital sense that we are so used to thinking of as being “logical”.

I might add also, that Analog Systems are perfect for controlling ‘balance’. They “seek” equilibrium innately without any need to ‘think’ about it ‘logically’ in a Digital Sense.

So God could have an Analog Mind and not need to ‘think’.