I talk with God

[Dravyga]

Maybe by using words, god thinks humans will be able to change the the meaning? Maybe fear of something?

 

[RoyLennigan]

*************
M*W: Although drippingly poetic, why don't you just call it what it is and forego the melodrama and metaphor?

because i don't know what it is, i just know. I cannot give a name to something that cannot be said in words. my original post was (in some way) to show that truth cannot be told; it cannot be read or heard; it cannot be conveyed by language, not even the most clear language of mathematics. language is nothing but metaphor and this post was intended to show that truth is that which is not metaphor. i don't condone my post as any kind of truth, in fact i agree that it is merely "melodrama and metaphor". but at the same time, melodrama and metaphor are two of the best ways to convey ideas in language. you can't convey new ideas through language, but you can realize associations and relationships between things that you already knew simply by reading or hearing or seeing something that triggers this understanding. that is what an epiphany is; when something triggers your mind to put two ideas together that you had never before seen a relationship in and you suddenly realize completely how the two (or more) interact. this is the only knowledge that language can relate, though it is merely the coordination of already known knowledge.

language conveys an idea by common association with symbols, both auditory and visual (though i guess you could use other senses as well; imagine a language based on smell). so even if we both read the exact same sentence at the exact same time, it has a different meaning to each of us. but when you bring in strong associations and strict descriptions of things--using as many different ways of describing the same thing as possible--it becomes easier for other people to understand your exact idea, though still impossible for others to fully realize it as you do. that is why, rather than simply saying what i believe in, i described experiences that made me think the way i do. they may not be the exact idea that was intended, but i tried to make it mean less philosophically and more associatively.

 

[illuminatingtherapy]

M*W: Although drippingly poetic, why don't you just call it what it is and forego the melodrama and metaphor?

And exactly what is it, do you propose...?

 

[RoyLennigan]

I disagree with this bit. If this "he" is that intelligent, he will realise that words don't lower his intelligence, but allow him to communicate with us in a way that human intelligence allows.

I would ask that you justify how using words would somehow makes a god less intelligent or less powerful.

because by using words, god allows humans to misinterpret those words. language cannot convey complete truth, its impossible to. so why would god leave words behind as his only message when he knows that those words will not be interpreted as the original message had intended?

in fact, why would anything short of the universe itself be needed to tell humans about god? you say that words will not lower his intelligence, but they do. words lower the intelligence of god because words cannot convey infinite knowledge (as god would surely have). and as i have said before, the wisdom of god could not have been conveyed in any language form (such as the bible) because words only convey already known information (though in different patterns). so language is like having a set of legos and putting them together in different forms and shapes. you already know everything you have, but when you put them together differently, you can see the different ways in which they interact. But you can't add legos to the set, you have to use the ones already there, and so the bible could not tell humanity what it did not know already, it could only put it together differently so that we might be able to introspectively figure things out on our own. that introspective realization, though, is strictly mental, and is a manifestation of a person's collective experiences. those that try to indulge too much in symbols and language often become deluded in metaphor, not being able to think without words or differentiate between symbol and experience.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I disagree with this bit. If this "he" is that intelligent, he will realise that words don't lower his intelligence, but allow him to communicate with us in a way that human intelligence allows.

I would ask that you justify how using words would somehow makes a god less intelligent or less powerful.

Snake, when people were first on the planet, they HAD NO LANGUAGE so words were of no use? If god spoke to them in words what sense would it make, language evolved it did not appear by magic. God's 'word' according to Roy is the original language and by the way the language we all understand and use to comprehend the world before we are two yrs old!
We think without words when we are babies and toddlers.

Hope this answers your question. Not flowery but makes perfect sense.



(Perfect sense re your hypothetical 'language query', not expecting you to assume that I am stating the language of God and thus God is 'proved'!!)

 

[SnakeLord]

because by using words, god allows humans to misinterpret those words.

Why? He is that intelligent right? Surely he can find the right words that people wont misinterpret?

language cannot convey complete truth, its impossible to.

Surely nothing is impossible for 'him'?

so why would god leave words behind as his only message when he knows that those words will not be interpreted as the original message had intended?

It need not be his only message, but the occasional interview with him sat on the top of a mountain saying: "Hi, I am {insert god name here}. Do not be gay or I'll set your balls on fire" would be more than welcome.

in fact, why would anything short of the universe itself be needed to tell humans about god?

Because the universe tells us nothing about any god, just lots about the universe. You can clearly see by church/mosque/synagogue attendance and holy book sales that humans simply do need more than the colour of the sky and the daily activities of the South Californian dung beetle.

Your original post was ok, but there was absolutely no need or justification to put the words "god" or "he" in it. The sky is blue because.... Where does a god come into the equation?

you say that words will not lower his intelligence, but they do. words lower the intelligence of god because words cannot convey infinite knowledge (as god would surely have).

I would disagree - given the statement that this supposed god is that intelligent he can make words convey infinite knowledge. Right?

--------

Snake, when people were first on the planet, they HAD NO LANGUAGE so words were of no use?

Adam didn't name all the animals? Damn, another belief bites the dust.

If god spoke to them in words what sense would it make, language evolved it did not appear by magic

But it did appear by magic - along with the universe, animals, humans, and everything else this god created.

But ok, I'll accept what you say momentarily. It's still no issue for a god that is that powerful and intelligent. If it really wanted us to know it was there it could just zap our brains with some mystical god ray and the problem is solved.

What this whole thing has come down to is simply: The universe exists and here's how it works.

There is no valid justification for flying sky monsters, gods, goblins or anything else along those lines. In saying, why bother including them in the post in the first place?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Why? He is that intelligent right? Surely he can find the right words that people wont misinterpret?



Surely nothing is impossible for 'him'?



It need not be his only message, but the occasional interview with him sat on the top of a mountain saying: "Hi, I am {insert god name here}. Do not be gay or I'll set your balls on fire" would be more than welcome.



Because the universe tells us nothing about any god, just lots about the universe. You can clearly see by church/mosque/synagogue attendance and holy book sales that humans simply do need more than the colour of the sky and the daily activities of the South Californian dung beetle.

Your original post was ok, but there was absolutely no need or justification to put the words "god" or "he" in it. The sky is blue because.... Where does a god come into the equation?



I would disagree - given the statement that this supposed god is that intelligent. He can make words convey infinite knowledge if he so chooses. Right?

--------



Adam didn't name all the animals? Damn, another belief bites the dust.



But it did appear by magic - along with the universe, animals, humans, and everything else this god created.

But ok, I'll accept what you say momentarily. It's still no issue for a god that is that powerful and intelligent. If it really wanted us to know it was there it could just zap our brains with some mystical god ray and the problem is solved.

Don't quote the bible at me snake, I have never read it, am NOT a Christian, so your reply to my reply and Roys (who also never mentioned christianity) is IRRELEVANT, why are you bringing the bible into it? Is there nothing you can think about that does not involve the bible and your brainwahsed view of God and what the christians presume to know about him? here you go again, if God created everything, who in this thread said he did? You have issues based on your religious upbringing that bias every thread you post in.

 

[SnakeLord]

Don't quote the bible at me snake, I have never read it, am NOT a Christian

Not that I quoted the bible, but why would I not be allowed to quote the bible solely because you haven't read it and aren't christian?

You might never have read anything by Einstein.. Would that mean I can't quote any if we discuss physics?

so your reply to my reply and Roys (who also never mentioned christianity) is IRRELEVANT

Hardly. My focus was on the implication that this 'god', (who features in many holy texts), is that powerful and intelligent, (which was not my statement). The statement was also made that this being would lose intelligence by using words - but I disagreed on the basis that if this being were actually that intelligent it could manage the feat without breaking a sweat.

why are you bringing the bible into it?

You're getting all flustered because I mentioned the name Adam? Calm down.

Is there nothing you can think about that does not involve the bible and your brainwahsed view of God and what the christians presume to know about him?

Sure there is. Was that a serious question or are you just being amusing?

if God created everything, who in this thread said he did?

I did. What, only you're allowed to say anything?

You have issues based on your religious upbringing that bias every thread you post in.

Nil points. I didn't have a religious upbringing. Better luck next time. Of course, you might find I discuss religion in every thread I post in because.. well.. this is the religious subforum.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Why? He is that intelligent right? Surely he can find the right words that people wont misinterpret?

evidence that god did not write the bible or any other religious text.

Surely nothing is impossible for 'him'?

evidence that god did not create language.

It need not be his only message, but the occasional interview with him sat on the top of a mountain saying: "Hi, I am {insert god name here}. Do not be gay or I'll set your balls on fire" would be more than welcome.

you just have to look harder to see his message, its not written in words nor catered to our exact senses, but it is imprinted in everything.

Because the universe tells us nothing about any god, just lots about the universe. You can clearly see by church/mosque/synagogue attendance and holy book sales that humans simply do need more than the colour of the sky and the daily activities of the South Californian dung beetle.

no, their attendance does not imply a need for church, it only implies a long-held reliance on it. their attendance only confirms the fact that humans would rather retain old, comfortable customs than search for new, more efficient or adaptable ones.

Your original post was ok, but there was absolutely no need or justification to put the words "god" or "he" in it. The sky is blue because.... Where does a god come into the equation?

because everyone seems to be searching for an all-encompassing entity, whether they show it or not. Whether it be God, Allah, Buddha, a Unifying Theory of Fundamentals, the Universe itself, etc., they are searching for a unified entity with which to feel a part of. The problem is that they are searching for something that they do not have a definition of. Or that they have a definition that is only a manifestation of their mental conditioning.

are you offended that i believe in god? or are you offended that i do not believe in your god?

I would disagree - given the statement that this supposed god is that intelligent. He can make words convey infinite knowledge if he so chooses. Right?

no he can't. you are saying that god can create a color red that is infinitely blue. its impossible, it just doesn't make sense. the very nature of language makes it impossible for it to carry complete truth. if god changed the nature of language, maybe he could convey infinite wisdom through it, though i really see no need for that to occur--the universe seems pretty perfect to me already.

But it did appear by magic - along with the universe, animals, humans, and everything else this god created.

But ok, I'll accept what you say momentarily. It's still no issue for a god that is that powerful and intelligent. If it really wanted us to know it was there it could just zap our brains with some mystical god ray and the problem is solved.

What this whole thing has come down to is simply: The universe exists and here's how it works.

There is no valid justification for flying sky monsters, gods, goblins or anything else along those lines. In saying, why bother including them in the post in the first place?

the problem with this premise is that if he were to arbitrarily change something--if he were to "just zap our brains with some mystical god ray"--it would cause some other problem to appear in reaction that would need to be taken care of. the fact is, our universe is in perfect balance and any unbalanced change will throw it drastically out of balance.

this balance is derived from a long process of cause and effect--based at the lowest [known] level on probable events. this way of looking at the universe does not defy god, it defines god.

 

[SnakeLord]

evidence that god did not write the bible or any other religious text.

As an atheist I'd certainly be the first to agree, but for discussions sake there are several scenarios that certainly seem valid to some, (if not the majority).

Perhaps this god being wants us to find him as opposed to letting us know he's here, (out of cosmic boredom or something), and as such has left us with dozens, if not hundreds of, (always ancient), god texts. Our job is to choose the right one.

Basically it all comes down to interpretation - but therein lies the problem in that your entire original post is nothing more than personal interpretation - and thus as fallible as words. You might see god in the gentle flutter of a butterfly's wing, in the calm swoosh of an ocean tide, or indeed in golden hue of an autumn leaf.. But I don't. I'm sure we can find a small handful of people that don't either - and thus your opening post is as inherently worthless as any holy text.

you just have to look harder to see his message, its not written in words nor catered to our exact senses, but it is imprinted in everything.

It's not about looking hard, it's about personal interpretation as explained above. My eyes do not see what your eyes see. While I certainly find the sky fascinating, it doesn't equate to gods. What you say is imprinted in everything, I decline and say isn't imprinted in anything - and that's where it ends. I can't see that god is in everything, and you can't see that there is no god in anything - none is the wiser.

no, their attendance does not imply a need for church, it only implies a long-held reliance on it. their attendance only confirms the fact that humans would rather retain old, comfortable customs than search for new, more efficient or adaptable ones.

Or you mean someone elses view of what they see as god differs from what you see? Again - it's all personal interpretation, nothing more. You've answered for everyone that attends religious places on the sole basis that you see things differently - apparently a more efficient, and undoubtedly better way. That's how god believers generally are.. their way is always better than everyone elses - and yet the reality is that each is as interpretable and fallible as the other.

because everyone seems to be searching for an all-encompassing entity, whether they show it or not.

I'd disagree, and say that you're not really in a position to answer for everyone, (although I will afford you that right with exception to me). However, let's just say I agree - that still fails to justify saying the sky is blue.. because of a god.

The sky is blue because.... {spectrums yada yada yada}. That's it - anything else is redundant.

are you offended that i believe in god?

Certainly not. If you ever started to try and force it upon young children then yes, I would start taking offence, (not by your personal belief, but by the action).

or are you offended that i do not believe in your god?

There are no gods that I believe in.

no he can't. you are saying that god can create a color red that is infinitely blue.

An omnipotent god? Yes, it can. Don't ask me how, I'm just a human.. You and I lacking the required knowledge of how to wouldn't change anything to an omnipotent being.

its impossible, it just doesn't make sense.

To you and me, sure. We are just lowly humans after all.

the problem with this premise is that if he were to arbitrarily change something--if he were to "just zap our brains with some mystical god ray"--it would cause some other problem to appear in reaction that would need to be taken care of

Not to an omnipotent being it wouldn't.

the fact is, our universe is in perfect balance

There are two words that don't belong..

Fact and perfect.

I would usually advise refraining from using either in such discussion. So tell me, how is the universe in "perfect" balance?

 

[Provita]

great post, farby the most well-analyzed post ever. I love how it comes from the heart and has no intent in converting athiests or making thiests revoke their faith... a rare and good post.

 

[RoyLennigan]

SnakeLord, i do believe you misinterpret my intentions and beliefs. The only perspective i'm trying to push on other people is that truth can only be learned by experience. i am not saying that god exists but i am not saying that god doesn't exist either. i am saying that god is a word that can be defined as anything you want it to be. here, i have left god almost undefined, saying that god is time or fate or entropy or planck's constant, anything you have in mind. but i would ask one thing of any god-believer--that his definition of god have some relation to observable characteristics of the universe around us. my personal god is experience. experience rules my world and i have forever gratitude for my ability to experience and what i have experienced already.

as a person who has experienced much through a lack of association, i have to say that the notion that god is playing a game by leaving different religious texts behind is much more absurd than the idea that god is a state of the universe. perhaps god is the energy that is flowing through your body right now.

but to come back to a major point through all this--it really depends on your definition of god.

You might see god in the gentle flutter of a butterfly's wing, in the calm swoosh of an ocean tide, or indeed in golden hue of an autumn leaf.. But I don't. I'm sure we can find a small handful of people that don't either - and thus your opening post is as inherently worthless as any holy text.

the thing is, i don't see god in the flutter of a butterfly's wing or the swoosh of the ocean tide. that is exactly why i was an atheist as a teen followed by agnosticism which soon turned into something transcendent of agnosticism. rather than believing in one or the other, i believe both, but it is something that is hard to explain, even to myself sometimes. when i see those beautiful things of nature, i enjoy the experience caused by them. the feeling i get when i have these experiences is similar to what i hear from theists' description of god. and so i do not label these things as god, as you say i have, but i have associated them with the idea of a god, in hopes that i may better convey my ideas to a wider range of people. god is something that is not tied so strictly by definition, and as such it is something that everyone has their own, very unique, idea about.

I can't see that god is in everything, and you can't see that there is no god in anything - none is the wiser.

no, i see that there is both god in everything and no god in anything. i see both and neither at the same time because i really don't care either way. it depends on how you define what you experience. i can define the entire universe as god, or i can define the sun as god, or i can define a image in my mind as god--it doesnt matter, the only thing that matters to me is direct experience. you can't put words to direct experience, so you have to improvise with what you have--you have to find ways of showing other people how what they already know fits together. besides, from religious ideas it seems to me that god is more of a feeling than an observable entity.

Or you mean someone elses view of what they see as god differs from what you see? Again - it's all personal interpretation, nothing more. You've answered for everyone that attends religious places on the sole basis that you see things differently - apparently a more efficient, and undoubtedly better way. That's how god believers generally are.. their way is always better than everyone elses - and yet the reality is that each is as interpretable and fallible as the other.

i am quite aware of these facts, if you couldn't gleam that from my posts. in fact one of the points to the original post was to imply that god is only what we interpret god to be--that god is wholly subjective and in being so god inevitably exists (and metaphorically, exists supernaturally because it is only seen as god by humans) of course i see things differently, doesn't everyone? my philosophy is a patchwork of many other peoples' ideas that i connect with; i strive for diversity of opinion and through that i know i will find a more accurate truth than those who are content with naive understandings. i don't think on terms of one person being better than another, so i dont quite understand where some of what you are saying is coming from, but i try to conscientious of other peoples' susceptibility to offence through misunderstanding. i always have in the back of my mind that my philosophy is no different than anyone elses, and that the only conflict is due to my inability to express it clearly enough for them to understand it as i do. and vice versa.

I'd disagree, and say that you're not really in a position to answer for everyone, (although I will afford you that right with exception to me). However, let's just say I agree - that still fails to justify saying the sky is blue.. because of a god.

The sky is blue because.... {spectrums yada yada yada}. That's it - anything else is redundant.

you're still misunderstanding me. i do not justify the sky being blue because of a god. i say that what makes the sky blue is god because i know that without that which i call god, the sky would not be blue. but nor would gravity act the way it does, nor would energy behave as it does--the universe would be drastically different. god is not some mystical figure somewhere in an unreachable heaven--god is something undefinable through words and only able to be known subjectively. i can call anything i want god but it doesnt make it god to the next person. but i think that people's definitions of god relate to deep introspection and experiences; i think that it is like an inner connection to the outer world--maybe just a feeling or maybe a sense that we are part of what is around us and not really individuals. but it is unique for everyone.

Certainly not. If you ever started to try and force it upon young children then yes, I would start taking offence, (not by your personal belief, but by the action).

but that is exactly what everyone does. you may call it math or you may call it god or you may call it history--but it is something which molds experience in to your offspring. we force this upon our children any way you look at it and it twists their view of the world around them. instead of showing them things and letting them figure out exactly how it happens, we tell them and we force them to understand that that is exactly how it works. we leave them with simple answers, tired of their constant nagging and not always wanting to be with them. the majority of our society sends their children away to be baby-sat for their entire child-adolescent years. they sit inside being told how the world works instead of going outside and actually learning/experiencing how it works.

now, i do not doubt that math and history are important, but they teach the children nothing when the kids don't actually understand or see the relevance of it. to see how it is relevant and important, it is always better to show them how it works in reality and let them understand it subjectively.

There are no gods that I believe in.

oh, im sure there are, you just havent defined them as gods. its only a word, anyways.

An omnipotent god? Yes, it can. Don't ask me how, I'm just a human.. You and I lacking the required knowledge of how to wouldn't change anything to an omnipotent being.

but it wouldn't matter to us anyways because as humans we wouldn't be able to see a red that is infinitely blue. all we would see would be red. or blue. but not both. unless we were changed ourselves. if we had the physical ability to see both red and blue in the same thing, then it would be possible. but i don't really see where this argument is going.

To you and me, sure. We are just lowly humans after all.

exactly.

There are two words that don't belong..

Fact and perfect.

I would usually advise refraining from using either in such discussion. So tell me, how is the universe in "perfect" balance?

yes, it must be in perfect balance, because if it werent, then it would be a different universe. you have to realize that perfect is not an absolute, but a state that is defined subjectively. i deem the universe as perfect because if it weren't, i would not exist in the way i do now. of course, if it were different, then i would exist differently (or not exist at all) and yet i would still say the universe is perfect because i would be a different person and that universe would be perfect for me.

 

[RoyLennigan]

great post, farby the most well-analyzed post ever. I love how it comes from the heart and has no intent in converting athiests or making thiests revoke their faith... a rare and good post.

i appreciate it, i think that any philosophy is valid, but our claims that some are not accurate are due to both our inability to understand them and their inability to express them fully.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

SnakeLord, i do believe you misinterpret my intentions and beliefs. The only perspective i'm trying to push on other people is that truth can only be learned by experience. i am not saying that god exists but i am not saying that god doesn't exist either. i am saying that god is a word that can be defined as anything you want it to be. here, i have left god almost undefined, saying that god is time or fate or entropy or planck's constant, anything you have in mind. but i would ask one thing of any god-believer--that his definition of god have some relation to observable characteristics of the universe around us. my personal god is experience. experience rules my world and i have forever gratitude for my ability to experience and what i have experienced already.

.

This and the rest of the post is 100% my view, you are able to express so much more eloquently than I, next time someone asks me to explain I shall refer them to your post! Thanks

 

[RoyLennigan]

This and the rest of the post is 100% my view, you are able to express so much more eloquently than I, next time someone asks me to explain I shall refer them to your post! Thanks

thanks! i'm glad we've reached a common ground, thats always my goal.

 

[redarmy11]

Hi Roy,

I've just had a big poo! Sitting there with my pants round my ankles, I was thinking about bluejays, light waves and the 'sand' at Southport beach, in that order. Actually there isn't any sand - just mud, with no sea for about 25 miles! But anyway, I wasn't thinking about God at all when, glancing down just as I flushed, sure enough, there He was! Beard and everything! Beaming up at me as he disappeared around the U-bend, bearing the little baby Jesus in his arms! Will you write a poem about that, please!??? My mate Fat Jeff hates them, he says they're wishy-washy nonsense and "of no particular consequence" (whatever that means!), but I think they're great!!!

Praise be, etc.,

redarmy11.

 

[Naat]

Why the violent use of the word "god" in the original post? Change "God" to "nature" and what do you get? I got the idea that the text will hold its idea without the "god". What I understood, you just defined nature as a god, nice one.
Scientist and philosphers have observed nature for centuries, rarely needing to use "god" to explain what was observed.

 

[john smith]

What makes this post so great, isn't the notion of God being involved, but the silent, quiet, calm, contemplating wisdom expressed in words. I love it. IMO, one of the best posts on this forum.

Brown noser.

Do you agree with his post or something?

 

[john smith]

thanks! i'm glad we've reached a common ground, thats always my goal.

Are you a preist or monk or some such ridiculous religious puppet?

you sound like one fo sho.

 

[LeeDa]

Hey it's God here. Just dropping a line. Ta.