A religious question
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
A host of unspoken assumptions underlie your proposition.
That's true, and I'm not trying to complicate the matter to much - it realy just a simple comparison - from your perspective would you say its a fair one?
Given my understanding of how most people perceive god, i.e. that he is omnipotent and omnipresent, I would say yes.
Depends on how the god has been defined. If say god like beings exist and are really only just intelligences that have evolved over trillions of years then perhaps your comparison is over the top.
You should first define its properties and then do the comparison. Although without being able to actually perform any real measurements it is unclear what this imaginary comparion would mean.
You should first define its properties and then do the comparison. Although without being able to actually perform any real measurements it is unclear what this imaginary comparion would mean.
ambehrendt
Registered Member
how would you describe a hoax in comparison to a person?
In Islam God is described as As-Samad, i.e. one whose existence is neither temporal nor conditional. As such, material attributes are not ascribed to him.
Trying to quantify God or comparing him to humans is hence to be considered a pointless exercise.
Hi Sam,
How can something be non-temporal and not be conditional? In that sentence you just said one condition of god is to be non-temporal.
Isn't that paradoxical? Oxymoronic?
Regardless, we agree that you do worship God and I thnk we can agree that you do so for some set of reasons. I think I can assume you do not worship a human (although I am available on request
. This suggests that the God-head is worthy of worship for reasons that are over and above that of a human.
Would that be fair to say?
So in some sort of manner you have made some sort of quantification of God (God is worthy of worship) over that of human (Human is not worthy of worship).
Without getting to over the top with this, could it be fair to say those things that make God worthy of worship, over human, are of such magnitude that a fair comparison of that magnitude is the mass of a mote compared with the mass of an infinite number of stars?
Michael
Michael,
You may find it difficult to obtain an agreement from theists on the comparison of a rude physical quantity such as mass to the ethereal essence of god.
You may find it difficult to obtain an agreement from theists on the comparison of a rude physical quantity such as mass to the ethereal essence of god.
Well firstly, see the above post to Sam, if it is better to think of the question within that frame of reference.
A hoax is an action and that action is dependant on a "person". Therefore a simple comparison to a person is that a hoax can not exist with out something "alive" to perform it; i.e. a hoax's existence is "life"-dependant. Life is not hoax-dependant and can exist without hoax (as indeed many animals do - but not all).
So people, being alive, will (on my scale of mote to Inf. x sun) be more significant (in my mind) than hoax.
Well true.
That said, I am 100% positive that while most theists do not sit around trying to make such comparisons - still, somewhere the assumption that God is greater than human to some large degree - is being made.
It's kind of standard to think Gods are greater then men isn't it? I mean that's why Gods are worshipped, that why a human can be exhaulted simply because said human is connected with a God or is becoming a God or can hear what a God is thinking or knows something about what God wants, etc.. ...
I think that's pretty fair to say .... isn't it?
I guess I am just curious as to that assumption as it pertains to each persons idea of God and human - at least on this forum anyway.
MII
Its one word As-Samad, which contains both qualities-unfortunately English is limited in the scope of its expression
I am very bad at these explanations. The two are not comparable. Its like saying art is better than food because a masterpiece is worth much more than a slice of bread. However one does not eat a masterpiece nor can one explain what quality in it is worth millions.
Yes, that's fair. My experience is that the conception runs from the most childish, that being a bearded man waiting to welcome you to heaven through gates of pearl, to an almost complete denial of any human or material attribute whatsoever - an incomprehensible essence that is only spoken of in reference to his (its?) presence and effects.
This is a close description of what God would be described as Allah in Islam or even I believe, as Brahman in Hinduism. The bearded old man concept seems like a metaphor rather than an actual image. I have known many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) in India and they do not visualise God like this. Maybe this is a Western concept?
Last edited:
If God is infinite, the analogy would not even come close.
The far-flung and almost absurd comparisons that Catholic nuns are wont to give for eternity are closer to the truth:
Imagine a bird passing by a mountain every ten billion years and the tiniest bit of its tiniest feather just barely brushes against this mountain. Then imagine this process goes on and on until the mountain is eroded. Then imagine that for as many fly-bys it took to erode the mountain, there are that many mountains to erode, and then you'll maybe, -maybe-, come close to appreciating the first nanosecond of eternity.
The far-flung and almost absurd comparisons that Catholic nuns are wont to give for eternity are closer to the truth:
Imagine a bird passing by a mountain every ten billion years and the tiniest bit of its tiniest feather just barely brushes against this mountain. Then imagine this process goes on and on until the mountain is eroded. Then imagine that for as many fly-bys it took to erode the mountain, there are that many mountains to erode, and then you'll maybe, -maybe-, come close to appreciating the first nanosecond of eternity.
That’s fair enough, and I wouldn’t want you to do something … errr ??? heretical?
But if you could indulge me:
- You do worship God?
- You do not worship human?
- You would consider a being that contains the properties of As-Samad to be of more significance than a being that does not?
If so, then in some sort of manner you have made some sort of quantification of God over that of human – at the very least that of having the property of As-Samad? Correct?
MII
Either way, there must be come sort of comparison made somewhere in some part of the mind - else why worship the God -head? Why revere those that have connected with the God-head or those that can somehow put the God-heads “thoughts” into human words? (although I have to say it seems, to me, that a God-head should be able to do so in a snap) nevertheless, there must be some sort of quantification going on???
Thank you.
*sigh*
What part of "not comparable" is hard to figure out?
Can you compare the love of a mother for her child with the love of a woman for a man?
Is worshipping an object of beauty the same as worshipping money or status?
You cannot compare apples and oranges.
Ahhh, I like this
Yes eternity is inconceivable and in that concept even an atheist as myself can appreciate the notion of the inexplicable. It may be that all of us here will have this exact same conversation an infinite times in an infinite other lives if thing repeat for eternity.
Anyway, I don’t worship eternity (or do I?) no I don’t because eternity has not sense of consciousness or moral code or As-Samad or any other attribute that could be possibly attributed to a God-head. That being the case – I still think people make an unconscious quantification (as illogical as it may be) of the concept of God and then place it high than the concept of human and then set about worshipping.
Why else worship?
You know, that bloody bird analogy is starting to make me think – something I did NOT want to do during this post!
My initial question may not be so easy to answer
Michael