TheERK said:
Why doesn't God just show himself?
- Thread starter moementum7
- Start date
Now now. Doc don't you think we end up with a semantical problem, definition of god, etc. etc.?
By the typical definition, god is irrelevant as it is defined to be implicitely beyond comprehension. I think tiassa's comments regarding anthropomorphization are actually rooted in a similar realization, though he finds a way to present it such that either side of the argument can more clearly relate to it.
I summarize as follows:
If god created the universe, and god is outside the universe, then god is outside your ability to percieve, as you perception is tied directly to the universe. (that's the quick version anyway)
By the typical definition, god is irrelevant as it is defined to be implicitely beyond comprehension. I think tiassa's comments regarding anthropomorphization are actually rooted in a similar realization, though he finds a way to present it such that either side of the argument can more clearly relate to it.
I summarize as follows:
If god created the universe, and god is outside the universe, then god is outside your ability to percieve, as you perception is tied directly to the universe. (that's the quick version anyway)
DoctorNO said:
We can sure try. Everyone has an idea of what "God" is. And many, including me, agree with Webster's definition of God. I just want to know MW's idea of "God".wesmorris said:
I dont buy it. Sure we could not fully comprehend what God is but we could sure tell the basic qualities of a God. And we could tell what God is not. Simple. Eh?wesmorris said:
wesmorris said:
But if God created the Universe (and that is a given in the above statement), then surely He would only be able to create it from His own perception, therefore Creator and 'created' would share the same perceptions?
How could they though! The Creator must have had the choice of whether they created this thing? Why would a Creator create automatons? But if the Creator could only create something from his own perceptions then He must have included 'choice'. Arggg dilema! What if the created screw it all up???? How could they screw it up? God would not screw it up? But they must have the choice!!!! Arggg dilema! Does not compute, does not compute! No balance! Thank God love covers a multitude of sins eh? Love is the greatest of all!
peace
c20 :m:
Being vessels of the spirit of god doesnt make us God. As horses being the vessel of man doesnt make that horse human. No those are two different things.Medicine Woman said:
All we are able to do is travel and heal ourselves. We did nothing to improve our genetic makeup. And scientists even argue that humanity could no longer evolve because we are oversaturated. The weak intermarries with the strong. The defective are being preserved and allowed to multiply. We could not find the ethical excuse to experiment on our selves.Medicine Woman said:
wesmorris said:
Even 3 dimensional objects can be represented in 2 dimensional paintings. The unseen could be described in words. We dont have to "fully explain" the internal functions & processes of God. All we have to do is describe his qualities. We are intelligent enough. We could tell a god by his ability do create galaxies in 1 second. We could tell a god by his ability to resurrect the dead buried in cemeteries. We could tell a god by his ability to read our minds.
Medicine Woman said:
(Please quote people properly, it's annoying to have to fix it.)
Right. Nice response.
Just because I'm arguing against your tendency to create totally arbitrary definitions doesn't mean I'm closed minded. In fact, you aren't displaying open mindednes by pretending God is whatever you feel like you want it to be--you're just confusing people. If I claim that God is a thermostat in the apartment next door to me, that isn't open mindedness, and when somebody argues with that, it isn't close minded of them.
Please stick to posting posts with content rather than meaningless attacks.
DoctorNO said:
Yeah but that's not the only issue. That's part of it and your point here is valid, but the rest is covered below:
So you say, but I'm almost sure that if your tech is sufficiently advanced, you could make me think you're a god. Otherwise it woudln't be sufficiently advanced! You probably can't see through tech you simply can't comprehend.
I don't think so. How do you know it isn't an elaborate illusion?
What if that's a tech thing?
That's definately a tech thing. My guess is that humans will have this power within a few centuries as the very latest.. actually then you'll have to get a firewall for your head. LOL.
I don't buy it man. You couldn't tell real god from smart alien.
Perhaps even, a really really smart alien wouldn't have to convince you at all, because he could just put the thought in your mind and you'd believe it because you couldn't defend against it because you don't have a headular firewall?!?! Hehe.
Last edited:
dr no
3 dimensional objects are not 3 dimensional in a 2 dimensional painting
WHY NOT if he exists then we should know everything about him if you dont know anything about him how could you describe his qualitys
how would you know if he has created galaxies
resurect the dead would that not upset them as they have a better time in heaven dont they!
how would you know he had read you mind he could just be intuative
dont talk wet
3 dimensional objects are not 3 dimensional in a 2 dimensional painting
WHY NOT if he exists then we should know everything about him if you dont know anything about him how could you describe his qualitys
how would you know if he has created galaxies
resurect the dead would that not upset them as they have a better time in heaven dont they!
how would you know he had read you mind he could just be intuative
dont talk wet
Doctor No: "We can sure try. Everyone has an idea of what "God" is. And many, including me, agree with Webster's definition of God. I just want to know MW's idea of "God".
*************
M*W: You asked, and I told you what I believe to be God.
*************
Doctor No: Your imagination however is typical of a self deluded cultist.
*************
M*W: It is you who are simply another deluded Christian.
*************
Doctor No: I think its just misunderstandings here. Medicine Woman maybe it would help our discussion if you would tell us how you define "God". And then we'll tell you how we understand the word. Can you do that?
*************
M*W: I believe I have defined for you my interpretation of "God." I don't care how YOU understand the word. You're a Christian, so I already know what you've been programmed to believe.
*************
Doctor No: Being vessels of the spirit of god doesnt make us God. As horses being the vessel of man doesnt make that horse human. No those are two different things.
*************
M*W: First of all, your analogy comparing the One Spirit of God to horses is ridiculous. Horses may have a portion of the One Spirit of God, but horses so not contain the spirit of man. Man uses horses as a vehicle--not a vessel.
*************
Doctor No: All we are able to do is travel and heal ourselves. We did nothing to improve our genetic makeup. And scientists even argue that humanity could no longer evolve because we are oversaturated. The weak intermarries with the strong. The defective are being preserved and allowed to multiply. We could not find the ethical excuse to experiment on our selves.
*************
M*W: You have a diminished vision of what humanity can accomplish--"travel and heal ourselves." What ignorance! We have control of our destiny. We are proving it everyday. Otherwise, we'd still be Neanderthals.
Our genetic make-up is also improving with better diet and better healthcare. It happens over time. It's like spontaneous generation. Scientists don't really know the impact of our species becoming "oversaturated." That's why they argue. Science doesn't prove what IS. Science proves what ISN'T. Science tells us that we are no long Neanderthals, but science doesn't tell us what we are evolving toward. Science cannot determine that yet.
"The weak intermarrying with the strong," will make the weaker stronger. The weakest ones (the "defective) will eventually die out. You seem to think that we (scientists) "could not find the ethical excuse to experiment on ourselves." That's bullcrap. You must be living in a spider hole! Without this experimentation which you deny, how else could we have reached the cutting-edge biotechnology we have today that can even isolate the molecule in the brain that can trigger religious hallucinations! We have long been experiementing on ourselves! We can create life in a test tube! Scientists are now concluding that most disease processes aren't the result of a bad diet and lifestyle, heart disease and other disease processes are the result of an inflammatory process that starts very young in life--even in babies, but no medical tests can determine these diseases until the 55 year-old man has a massive MI, for example. From the moment we are born, we start to deteriorate. That's why we only live to be 70-75 years. I see this phenomenon as being like an allergic reaction to Planet Earth! This comes from the toxins and pollution that we created in our environment.
All that aside, we are constantly in the process of regeneration. That's how we can tell that we're no longer Neanderthals. Religions haven't done anything to help mankind survive during our lifetime--only science has, and our indomitable will to live and evolve from homo sapiens sapiens to homo spiritus.
*************
M*W: You asked, and I told you what I believe to be God.
*************
Doctor No: Your imagination however is typical of a self deluded cultist.
*************
M*W: It is you who are simply another deluded Christian.
*************
Doctor No: I think its just misunderstandings here. Medicine Woman maybe it would help our discussion if you would tell us how you define "God". And then we'll tell you how we understand the word. Can you do that?
*************
M*W: I believe I have defined for you my interpretation of "God." I don't care how YOU understand the word. You're a Christian, so I already know what you've been programmed to believe.
*************
Doctor No: Being vessels of the spirit of god doesnt make us God. As horses being the vessel of man doesnt make that horse human. No those are two different things.
*************
M*W: First of all, your analogy comparing the One Spirit of God to horses is ridiculous. Horses may have a portion of the One Spirit of God, but horses so not contain the spirit of man. Man uses horses as a vehicle--not a vessel.
*************
Doctor No: All we are able to do is travel and heal ourselves. We did nothing to improve our genetic makeup. And scientists even argue that humanity could no longer evolve because we are oversaturated. The weak intermarries with the strong. The defective are being preserved and allowed to multiply. We could not find the ethical excuse to experiment on our selves.
*************
M*W: You have a diminished vision of what humanity can accomplish--"travel and heal ourselves." What ignorance! We have control of our destiny. We are proving it everyday. Otherwise, we'd still be Neanderthals.
Our genetic make-up is also improving with better diet and better healthcare. It happens over time. It's like spontaneous generation. Scientists don't really know the impact of our species becoming "oversaturated." That's why they argue. Science doesn't prove what IS. Science proves what ISN'T. Science tells us that we are no long Neanderthals, but science doesn't tell us what we are evolving toward. Science cannot determine that yet.
"The weak intermarrying with the strong," will make the weaker stronger. The weakest ones (the "defective) will eventually die out. You seem to think that we (scientists) "could not find the ethical excuse to experiment on ourselves." That's bullcrap. You must be living in a spider hole! Without this experimentation which you deny, how else could we have reached the cutting-edge biotechnology we have today that can even isolate the molecule in the brain that can trigger religious hallucinations! We have long been experiementing on ourselves! We can create life in a test tube! Scientists are now concluding that most disease processes aren't the result of a bad diet and lifestyle, heart disease and other disease processes are the result of an inflammatory process that starts very young in life--even in babies, but no medical tests can determine these diseases until the 55 year-old man has a massive MI, for example. From the moment we are born, we start to deteriorate. That's why we only live to be 70-75 years. I see this phenomenon as being like an allergic reaction to Planet Earth! This comes from the toxins and pollution that we created in our environment.
All that aside, we are constantly in the process of regeneration. That's how we can tell that we're no longer Neanderthals. Religions haven't done anything to help mankind survive during our lifetime--only science has, and our indomitable will to live and evolve from homo sapiens sapiens to homo spiritus.
Wesmorris said:
But ... where is God, then? That's only important because if God is, and if God exists outside the Universe, then draw a circle around God and the Universe, and what do you call that totality?
Consider an argument against polytheism: Generally, polytheism is just diluted monotheism. Essentially, something binds the individual gods, keeps them in check--e.g. Greek and Roman mythology--and that something must be accounted for.
Similarly, if God and Universe are in any way separate entities, what do we call the whole of the condition in which they both exist?
And are we humans part of that system? It would seem so. Which sort of returns humanity to the realm of possible perception.
The technical note: Nonetheless, we humans are absolutely incapable of perceiving the whole at any one time without transcending our humanity entirely. We are finite entities, and only capable of so much.
One of my favorites:
The Blind Webster
(Psalm 21)
It is not necessary to understand; it is enough to adore.
The god may be of clay: adore him; he becomes GOD.
We ignore what created us; we adore what we create. Let us create nothing but GOD!
That which causes us to create is our true father and mother; we create in our own image, which is theirs.
Let us create therefore without fear; for we can create nothing that is not GOD.
(Psalm 21)
It is not necessary to understand; it is enough to adore.
The god may be of clay: adore him; he becomes GOD.
We ignore what created us; we adore what we create. Let us create nothing but GOD!
That which causes us to create is our true father and mother; we create in our own image, which is theirs.
Let us create therefore without fear; for we can create nothing that is not GOD.
______________________
• Perdurabo, Frater. "The Blind Webster." The Book of Lies. See http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/uncle_al/lies/24.html
tiassa said:
The name is unimportant, I understand what you mean. How about "the omniverse" or whatever. The omniverse - my POV = "the tao".
But doesn't whether or not they are separate entities rely entirely on your choice of POV? If I look at "the omniverse", from one way, they are indeed separate entities, and if I choose the other, they are part of the greater whole and separation is irrelevant, they serve the system - even if it's as "creator and creation".
I think you know that this doesn't really make sense in the big picture or you wouldn't have included your note. I take issue with this assertion as I'll explain below.
IMO: It is exactly that limitation that refutes your prior assertion. I'll try to explain.
On knowledge: You are/have a POV. Put a dot on a sheet of paper. Draw a circle around the dot and there is the limit of your knowledge, because it is the limit of your perception. You don't know if someone has drawn a bigger circle around your circle, changing your perception. IMO, that necessarily renders anything outside of that circle subject to doubt. That doesn't mean you can't think "this is probably true" about whatever is outside the circle, it's just that anything out there can be thought of as "the tao".
It seems to me if you examine the question of god in this context, you circle gets smaller and smaller until it becomes the same as your POV. You cannot say with any certainty that information leading you to think "this must be god" is any more accurate than your wildest fantasy, even if "god" were to present himself for inspection and exist in your mind, read your thoughts and tell you "I'm god" in your head. IMO, "god" would have to know this and knows as such, the predicament it created must necessarily render it irrelevant. Then again, that is making a presumption about something that is necessarily beyond my ability to comprehend.
Further, if we can see the "2D" representation of "god", how could we know it is god? We can see the tip of the iceburg but the actual iceburg is outside our comprehension so we are still left with no evidence, as any evidence that would be necessarily proof is necessarily beyond our comprehension as was just established I think. In this case, your comprehension can expand for millions of year beyond that you could even remotely comprehend and the relationship is still the same. N as compared to infinity is still infinity - N from infinity. I think that's still an infinite distance. So no matter how smart we are, no matter how much we understand, the definition of god as "omnipotent, all-knowing and the creator of the universe" will always fail in this capacity.
I have been comparing it to the following as of late: Say we live in conventional space-time consisting of 3 spatial dimensions plus time. Have you ever tried to fit a 4 dimensional picture into your brain? How about a 10 dimensional picture? Okay how about infinited dimensions in your head, all at once. You can examine the four you can see, but there are an infinite number of degrees of freedom you can't account for. This is like the relationship of man to the idea he has created called god. I do believe the concept is actually an objective facet of "the set of all things abstract", in that it seems to me to be a natural conclusion that must be drawn if at some point the question exists "hey how did the universe get here?". So in that sense, god is real, just as much as this conversation is real. However, we simply and necessarily, by the condition (geometry really) of existing as a POV, lack the context to properly judge something that is inherently beyond that context (even if it can appear within our own context, the good stuff, the meaningful stuff is still far beyond).