Why doesn't God just show himself?

[Tiassa]

Wes, I don't necessarily disagree with you on any count; the technical note isn't as contradictory as it might seem--it is literally a note that we cannot, technically, perceive the infinite with our finite capacities.

On that note, imagine that we are standing in a room having this very conversation. At any one moment, I see you, but I don't see all of you. I don't, for instance, see the dark side of your moon unless you obscure from my view the other. Additionally, and as you're fond of pointing out on more acrimonious days between us, I don't perceive your thoughts, feelings, and so forth.

But does any of that mean I don't see you? Hell, that would be a great one to whip out for a collision report. "Yes, officer, I saw his blank stare in the headlights. But I didn't see all of him, so I didn't know he was there."

My post was, actually, entirely dependent on that snippet I took from yours.

But you did note it was the quick version. Perhaps we're going through the detail now?

 

[wesmorris]

But you did note it was the quick version. Perhaps we're going through the detail now?

LOL

You know I didn't intend to but then I found myself typing and I did it anyway.

*shrug*

But does any of that mean I don't see you? Hell, that would be a great one to whip out for a collision report. "Yes, officer, I saw his blank stare in the headlights. But I didn't see all of him, so I didn't know he was there."

It certainly does not. I'm sure you see what I think is me.. however two issues:

I'm standing in the room with you (as such you have reasonable, direct sensory, verifiable evidence of your claim, and other people see it too, the exact same thing, and you can physically verify by shooting me or throwing a ball to me and seeing if I throw it back, etc.)

Are you so sure it's me? What of all that comprises "me" do you think you see by examining my physical presence?

I do recognize the point that it is not impossible to know god, however I definately assert that without doubt it is impossible to know if that's what you're really doing.

I suppose that brings up the somewhat interesting question: What's the difference?

Lastly, it's relieving to interact with you on a less "acrimonious day". Nuff said about that for now.

 

[Tiassa]

What of all that comprises "me" do you think you see by examining my physical presence?

Very little. It's an identifier. For instance: This face is Wes' face.

In other words, would you find it odd in the least if I was standing in front of you and kept calling you, "Judy"?

As to the essence of you ... only the slightest hints, and those largely immediate--e.g. your mood according to your body language.

But in the metaphysical, there is no proof that it is actually you; there is only the empircal experience that an entity is representing itself to be you. And seeing all of you (note the stress on "you" and not "all") can also be extended to include those intangible aspects that I am incapable of perceiving without your choice to reveal them.

I do recognize the point that it is not impossible to know god, however I definately assert that without doubt it is impossible to know if that's what you're really doing.

I don't disagree at all. However, we must also consider that, no matter how well you know your wife, your children, your best friends ... you will never know them completely, which is a strange issue we haven't really touched on all--the topic seems more oriented toward a superficial validation of existence rather than an exploration of essence. So there arises the question of what standard comprises "knowing" God.

As to the difference? Twofold:

• Abstract: Little to no difference.
• Practical: It's the difference between knowing the idea of "good" versus the idea of "bad" and recoginizing the difference, as compared to claiming to know what "good" is--e.g. Christians v. marriage, Islam v. The West, or ... oh, say ... Drug War v. Health. That last is a bit obscure, but I am compelled to include it as part of my regular advocacy of the idea that "religion" is only separate from certain other absurdities by the presence of the godhead assertion. Which allows me to highlight the godhead assertion and point back to the point, as such. The godhead assertion typifies the difference. As you and I discuss the idea of knowing God, the difference is accepting that you can be wrong in what you assert about God, but for many the godhead assertion satisfies the demand to justify a declaration of what is right in lieu of a pursuit of what is right. And when those sentiments compel a soul to action ... it's the difference between believing you're right and believing you can't be wrong.

Or so says me.

 

[Roman]

Religion is politics. Politics is human. Humans are petty. Religion is petty. The creator of everything can't be petty.

God hasn't shown himself because he doesn't exist.

 

[wesmorris]

As to the difference? Twofold:

• Abstract: Little to no difference.

I don't understand how you reach that conclusion. IMO, the abstract is fundamental to the practical. Your abstract establishes your reltionship to x. Look at Jenyar for instance. His life is significantly shaped around his relationship with god and consequently his religion. I think I understand that you think this difference is an illusion. I maintain that it is at least as important as necessity if not possibly moreso, or possible far moreso depending on what the state of the tao really is. I guess you think that survival itself is more pertinent that the quality thereof whereas I percieve myself as generally nuetral on the topic, but actually lean toward the abstract, since it's what I think I understand. I see the abstract as a reflection of necessity, and do not seek the necessity itself - as I think that finding it is literally impossible, well, depending very sensitively on how you define it.

Regardless, where do you draw the line defining it? To do it don't you have to assume everyone is the same? Oh I see what you mean. You're saying that regardless, you just arbitrarily, politically choose the line that the politics endorses and that's it. No? Something like "can we all agree that we need air?" and the everone raises their OY! sign. Does the cannibal deserve consideration? Depends on whether or not you as the cannibal doesn't it? I wouldn't, and I'd side with "forget that dude", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist and isn't vying for someone as his resource (and sometimes endorsing lack of oxygen as a result). Pretending demand doesn't exist (meaning, pretending that what you might term "abstract demand") because it's the will of those who set policy certainly doesn't make it go away. I know it's cliche, but I think it's true nonetheless. Further I think those people have a right to demand whatever they want and the market and policy makers have every right to try and stop that from being met or to try to meet it or whatever they themselves demand. Regardless, I think people's experience - however invalid from a perspective other than theirs, yeilds their demand in both the abstract sense and in the primal sense. In fact they adapt to their experience in physical manners along with those abstract considerations. At least that's the going scientific stuff, with the evolutionary biology anthropology type business.

Maybe I'll get a point below.

• Practical: It's the difference between knowing the idea of "good" versus the idea of "bad" and recoginizing the difference, as compared to claiming to know what "good" is--e.g. Christians v. marriage, Islam v. The West, or ... oh, say ... Drug War v. Health. That last is a bit obscure, but I am compelled to include it as part of my regular advocacy of the idea that "religion" is only separate from certain other absurdities by the presence of the godhead assertion. Which allows me to highlight the godhead assertion and point back to the point, as such. The godhead assertion typifies the difference. As you and I discuss the idea of knowing God, the difference is accepting that you can be wrong in what you assert about God, but for many the godhead assertion satisfies the demand to justify a declaration of what is right in lieu of a pursuit of what is right. And when those sentiments compel a soul to action ... it's the difference between believing you're right and believing you can't be wrong.

I agree, but would like to mention that this is ultimately an abstract consideration. When properly motivated by the survival instinct, "wrong" doesn't matter. Survival does. That seems to moot the issue per your prior point regarding the abstract, or contradict your assertion as to its weight. Maybe I missed something.

 

[Jenyar]

With mathematics we have practically reconstructed the whole of reality using abstractions. But do we know mathematics? Do we understand it? You can't really answer that question, because it's a question about the tao of mathematics, not our interaction with it.

 

[water]

I suspect mood swings.

No, no fucking mood swings!

It is just that the way the "issues pertaining God" are dealt with in Western society is so manly, so analytical.

As the latest research shows, according to Baron-Cohen, there are two kinds of human brains: a typical male brain, which is set to think in systems; and a typical female brain, which is set to think in terms of empathy; butr also a balanced brain.

See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937913,00.html

And what you men are doing here in this thread is exactly what typical male brains are set to do: analyze and systemize.

I don't mean to make light of your efforts -- I am only suggesting that there is also a very different approach to God, often discarded for its simplicity and emotionality. But I think it is none the less valid, and also probably more "immediately useful" and "practical". However, then the terms of a He-God and a God defined and understood by many analytical trains of thought, are not acceptable -- at least not for a female brain who is true to its female way of thinking.

 

[DoctorNO]

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.

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.

We are talking about definitions of "God" not the human's ability to prove godhood beyond doubt.

I don't buy it man. You couldn't tell real god from smart alien.

And why cant an alien be considered "god"? Like I said its how you define "god". For me a "god" is any being who is immortal, invulnerable, and can do all the things that the mythical Jesus did, OR a being who has uncontestable power over all humanity.

 

[wesmorris]

I know about the brain thing and all Rosa. I was just giving you hell. I suppose I was doing it because your argument regarding sexism seemed a little out of place and secondary to more direct logic. Note however that I didn't attempt to refute your point. I just wanted to jab you a smidge because I have the sense of humor of a fifth grader sometimes.

 

[DoctorNO]

Well wesmorris do you have a personal definition of "God"? what is it?

 

[wesmorris]

We are talking about definitions of "God" not the human's ability to prove godhood beyond doubt.


And why cant an alien be considered "god"? Like I said its how you define "god". For me a "god" is any being who is immortal, invulnerable, and can do all the things that the mythical Jesus did, OR a being who has uncontestable power over all humanity.

At some point I decided that if you have to resort to debating the definition of god, you really don't have anything clear to argue about.

*shrug*

I wouldn't believe an alien was god unless they forced me and I couldn't stop it, because I don't believe in the premise that a god is necessary based on the analysis I presented before and I figure a smart enough god shouldn't expect me to believe in it as a god. So the debate is moot to me at this point.

 

[DoctorNO]

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.

That is not my question. My question concerns the "What". What you told me concerns only the "Who". Again WHAT is your definition of "God"?

Doctor No: Your imagination however is typical of a self deluded cultist.
*************
M*W: It is you who are simply another deluded Christian.

You're a Christian, so I already know what you've been programmed to believe.
*************

You are starting to sound like Proud Muslim. Read my title. Do you know what "Agnostic" means? I abide by Christian values but I dont believe in any God.

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.

No you did not define anything. That is why I am giving you a direct question. What is your definition of "god"?

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.

Better health does not equate to improved genetic capabilities. We are still mortal. Our life span is still limited to a maximum of 125 years. We are still aging. We are still vulnerable. Nothing has changed in the past 10,000 years.

"The weak intermarrying with the strong," will make the weaker stronger.

No it produces an average person.

The weakest ones (the "defective) will eventually die out.

Not in today's society. Just look at William Hung.

 

[DoctorNO]

At some point I decided that if you have to resort to debating the definition of god, you really don't have anything clear to argue about.

*shrug*

Im not debating. Im just asking a question. I just wanted to know MW definition of "God".

I wouldn't believe an alien was god unless they forced me and I couldn't stop it, because I don't believe in the premise that a god is necessary based on the analysis I presented before and I figure a smart enough god shouldn't expect me to believe in it as a god. So the debate is moot to me at this point.

I am an agnostic. I dont think there is any way to prove the existence of god. But I do have a personal idea of what a god should be.

 

[DoctorNO]

Who cares how you folks define god so long as you tell me your definitions so we could better understand each other.

 

[wesmorris]

Im not debating. Im just asking a question. I just wanted to know MW definition of "God".

Pardon I didn't mean to say "you" so much as 'you' being anyone.

I am an agnostic.

Me too. As a consequence of my agnosticism, I'm also an atheist.

If that seems confusing, read this thread.

I dont think there is any way to prove the existence of god.

I feel similiarly to the point that you couldn't even know if it was standing right in front of me, kicking me in the nutz.

But I do have a personal idea of what a god should be.

I suppose I do too, but it renders itself irrelevant by it's definition. Quite crafty I'd say.

 

[DoctorNO]

But you know what? If some person performs some bible type supernatural powers and claims to be god, I'd believe him. I wouldnt care of the possibility that some alien or super villain was just messin with my head. I would believe him until somebody disproves him.

 

[wesmorris]

That's good to know.

*plans world domination illusion program x-9a, wesgood, wesgod 3000 revision b*

I am 1 of N!

LOL.

Yeah okay pardon.

 

[DoctorNO]

God, is that you?

*sobs*

 

[Tiassa]

The wheels on the bus are turning which way?

Wes / Jenyar

We seem to be looking at a certain aspect quite squarely but differently.

I'm midway through a response to Wes, and while the following is subject to revision--largely because of Jenyar's post, which tweaked something I apparently hadn't been considering in its proper aspect (and yet it's hard to say what that is, hence my hesitance and profuse prologue ....)--at any rate:

• I do recognize the point that it is not impossible to know god, however I definately assert that without doubt it is impossible to know if that's what you're really doing.

I suppose that brings up the somewhat interesting question: What's the difference?

• . . . . It might be a difference between whether "the abstract is fundamental" or "the relationship to the abstract is fundamental." In the end, things like God arise from the common aspects among people and tend to highlight the differences. How one regards a possibly-objective common theme among humanity in relationship to diverse priorities according to diverse people makes the functional difference to me.

It's an interesting point of orbit.

And speaking of points of orbit, I haven't forgotten the dot metaphor. I'm just taking my time getting back to it, because I'm not sure I won't be using lots of words to simply reiterate the point I'd be responding to.

Er ... yeah. The skeins are all there. Weaving a coherent depiction in the tapestry is the challenge.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

That is not my question. My question concerns the "What". What you told me concerns only the "Who". Again WHAT is your definition of "God"?
*************
M*W: For the 19th million time, my perception of god is a powerful force of pure positive energy that indwells in all creation. There is no "WHO" of God. God is not a separate entity with the ability to think or judge or sit on a cloud with a long white beard and strike us down with lightning bolts when we sin.
*************
Doctor No: You are starting to sound like Proud Muslim. Read my title. Do you know what "Agnostic" means? I abide by Christian values but I dont believe in any God.
*************
M*W: I know what "agnostic" means. So what is your point? You don't believe in any God, but you abide by Christian values. Not believing in any "God" sounds like "atheism" to me. Having Christian values means nothing in the greater scheme of things.
*************
Doctor No: No you did not define anything. That is why I am giving you a direct question. What is your definition of "god"?
*************
M*W: I have answered your question. Since you do not have a concept of "God," I don't expect you to understand my answer.
*************
Doctor No: Better health does not equate to improved genetic capabilities. We are still mortal. Our life span is still limited to a maximum of 125 years. We are still aging. We are still vulnerable. Nothing has changed in the past 10,000 years.
*************
M*W: Since poor health is generally inherited, better health over time WILL improve our genetics in the long run. In fact, our genetics have been improved in the past 100 years. In evolutionary time, that's a millisecond. Our diet has improved, our stature has grown. We're much taller now that say they were in Caesar's day. Can you imagine someone with the persona of Julius Caesar and his legions being only about 4 ft. tall? Today, it would be like fighting with children! Even 100 years ago, people weren't more than about 5 ft. tall. Have you ever gone to a museum that had clothes of the time? Like the Romanoff family, their clothes were not as big as their reputation!
*************
Doctor No: No it produces an average person.
*************
M*W: What's wrong with an "average person?" The whole idea is that marrying with our "own kind" does not bring about healthy genetics. The gamut of our diseases that developed over time proves this. As far as our human evolution goes, we do not evolve--we stay the same as long as we marry our own kind, and we become just "average." That's as good as it gets, but what's wrong with that? Look at Jewish intermarriages producing Tay-Sach's disease and others. Look at the Mormon's intermarriages. They are huge people--behemoths--from hardy German stock. They are scientifically known for passing the obesity gene to their progeny. And what about the more pure-bred English with their round eyes?
*************
Doctor No: Not in today's society. Just look at William Hung.
*************
M*W: I like William. He was made a mockery of, but I think he knows it. There is something cute about him in a weird sort of way, but I think sincerity emanates from him. He's a smart boy, studying mechanical engineering at a top school in CA. He's comical, and he makes people laugh. Laughter is good. Laughter heals. I think TV is finally realizing that there are more "average" people out there than superstars. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "average" people.