Selfdebate on God

selfdebate = selfdialogue = autodialectics (auto- here means self and not automatic)

Actually in strong theism like in Abrahamic religions God is a person or a combination of persons. In some cases claiming that God is impersonal, is a sophistry meant to avoid the question. The Brahman is impersonal, but it has personhood-compatible biases about the cosmic order outside mathematical reason. The Brahman is the erroneous claim that everything is one, but the term "everything" is a philosophical term not based on a rigorous axiomatic system. MIT mathematicians have experimented with alternative axiomatic systems which have similar foundations to mainstream mathematics, but in some cases their axioms are not lists but they are algorithms or a combination of lists and algorithms. The axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems doesn't exist for many reasons like: 1. some axiomatic systems are mutually exclusive, 2. there isn't always a general algorithm of transcripton between axiomatic systems. Thus even an impersonal godlike thing, would be an impossibility.

It failed to mention a very important subtlety. A God is necessarily a person, otherwise we distort language and semantics. Personhood has to be declared when it exists as an attribute. For the impersonal divine force we should use the terms impersonal divine force and impersonal supernatural force. Still the impersonal divine fields as described in many (particularly Asian) religions, impose some extra cosmic divine harmony and teleological cause, outside mathematical rigour and logic. Thus not only Gods, but also impersonal divine fields are at least partially personhood-biased, which means compatible with the desires and wishes of persons, or at least compatible with the biases of persons.

Physical foundations don't include personhood. No physical axiomatics includes personhood. Personhood requires thought, and thought requires a brain. The brain is a personhood-yielding computer. God could have been an idealized personhood-yielding computer, involved in cosmogony. No physical foundations approach leads to that conclusion. No physical axiomatics approach leads to that conclusion. Even and idealized topological brain, would require: 1. volume to be expressed, 2. time to perform tasks (because all-knowingness is stationary and structure-like, and thought is procedural), 3. thorough physical axiomatics able to produce physics, and universe-like spacetime in particular in order it can express the idealized brain. Mathematics isn't physics. Common mathematics cannot exist in itself. The true ontophysics isn't the physics of science (scientophysics), but ontophysics is the true physical theory we don't yet have about the cosmos, and it seems it has an open axiomatics due to cosmic inflation and because many constants could vary in other positive worlds. Personhood isn't a prerequisite for physical axiomatics. Also the supernatural isn't only unteachable, but it's neither scientifically hypothesised because it doesn't include any causally rigorous procedure. The supernatural has no ontological specifics, thus it doesn't have an identity and it's impossible to exist.

Your programmers and your database give a very wide definition for God, which includes impersonal cosmic procedures, either compatible with the needs of persons, or at least their esthetics on the cosmic order. Thus your or humanity's problems on definitions, have nothing to do with God. You don't differentiate God versus an impersonal divine field. You don't recognise that almost all impersonal religions, are suggesting that the cosmos has some values desired by persons; either immediate benefit, or unmathmatical esthetics (esthetics which have no rigorous examination; usually interpretational).

5. criticizing AI programmers for not having enough input on the personhood of God

Islamic territorists don't analytically and openly debate the personhood of God, the involvement of personhood in the physical axiomatics, the personhood-biasing of the impersonal divine fields, etc. Please update your inputs. In democracies we even debate on God.