Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

What if "God" isn't what you think?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:36:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God could be a non-sentient mechanism functioning with attributes grander than consciousness and the ability to feel love, and totally different on a scale we couldn't comprehend. Consciousness and love may just be something that helps our particular species survive, and may have absolutely no meaning with regards to God. God could be above everything we hold dear, in a way that God might not even be able to sympathize with or understand. We could be similar to a cosmic virus, replicating and consuming energy until our planet cannot sustain us anymore. A necessary side-effect of some greater function perhaps. Who says the function of this universe has anything at all to do with the well being of humans? Who says God is anything like us, at all? We can love and express consciousness, but who says these things are relevant in the grand scheme of things? God could have properties far more advanced and strange that we could ever perceive, with consciousness and love being petty in comparison, but something we naively hold dear. When natural disasters wipe out innocent people, who is to say that God's attributes are so much similar to humans, that sympathizing with this would be a result?

On the other hand, what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms? This would make us extremely relevant to the function of the universe. All the dead, lifeless galaxies and species deceased on earth, could just be the history books pertaining to God's failed experiments. What if we are the apex of reality, with us being God's goal. Consciousness could be the most important thing in nature, with all of reality being spent guided by a non-sentient mechanism, functioning in way which attempts to raise the probability of consciousness arising. Even if its progress only inches by, bit by bit, for billions of years. God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise. God may not function in a way which favors individual lives, but the species as a whole, as this would be the vessel of consciousness.

I think it's interesting to conceive of a different version of God than the traditional view. Reality could be much more odd than we could ever perceive, or begin to pick up with our self-awareness.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 4:45:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most theists know God isn't what we think, hence described as transcebdent, beyomd human understanding, etc.

1 Corinthians 8:1-2
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 6:58:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
nice. This is the kind of thinking, actually, that drew me away from Christianity. but how could god desire for consciousness and try to make it without it?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:48:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 6:58:38 AM, natoast wrote:
nice. This is the kind of thinking, actually, that drew me away from Christianity. but how could god desire for consciousness and try to make it without it?

I never said God would "desire" consciousness, I said God might function in a way which tends to raise the probability of consciousness.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:52:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 4:45:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Most theists know God isn't what we think, hence described as transcebdent, beyomd human understanding, etc.

1 Corinthians 8:1-2
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

If God is so beyond our understanding, how do you know he possesses attributes like the ability to judge, have knowledge and wisdom? I understand completely what judging, wisdom and knowledge are. Meaning if God has these attributes, he is much like a human. We as humans understand these attributes really well. I was just thinking that God might actually be very different from us. It seems you think he is very similar if you believe God has all those same attributes as us You might say he has those attributes, but on a much different scale. However, if God is on a such different scale, why must he have these attributes at all?


Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 11:07:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 9:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could be a non-sentient mechanism functioning with attributes grander than consciousness and the ability to feel love, and totally different on a scale we couldn't comprehend. Consciousness and love may just be something that helps our particular species survive, and may have absolutely no meaning with regards to God. God could be above everything we hold dear, in a way that God might not even be able to sympathize with or understand. We could be similar to a cosmic virus, replicating and consuming energy until our planet cannot sustain us anymore. A necessary side-effect of some greater function perhaps. Who says the function of this universe has anything at all to do with the well being of humans? Who says God is anything like us, at all? We can love and express consciousness, but who says these things are relevant in the grand scheme of things? God could have properties far more advanced and strange that we could ever perceive, with consciousness and love being petty in comparison, but something we naively hold dear. When natural disasters wipe out innocent people, who is to say that God's attributes are so much similar to humans, that sympathizing with this would be a result?

On the other hand, what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms? This would make us extremely relevant to the function of the universe. All the dead, lifeless galaxies and species deceased on earth, could just be the history books pertaining to God's failed experiments. What if we are the apex of reality, with us being God's goal. Consciousness could be the most important thing in nature, with all of reality being spent guided by a non-sentient mechanism, functioning in way which attempts to raise the probability of consciousness arising. Even if its progress only inches by, bit by bit, for billions of years. God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise. God may not function in a way which favors individual lives, but the species as a whole, as this would be the vessel of consciousness.

I think it's interesting to conceive of a different version of God than the traditional view. Reality could be much more odd than we could ever perceive, or begin to pick up with our self-awareness.

I think that arguments for the personal nature of God and the historicity of Jesus Christ are relevant to your worries.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 3:18:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:52:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 4:45:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Most theists know God isn't what we think, hence described as transcebdent, beyomd human understanding, etc.

1 Corinthians 8:1-2
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

If God is so beyond our understanding, how do you know he possesses attributes like the ability to judge, have knowledge and wisdom?

I don't, do you know what the word transcendent means?

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I understand completely what judging, wisdom and knowledge are.

Good for you.

Meaning if God has these attributes, he is much like a human. We as humans understand these attributes really well. I was just thinking that God might actually be very different from us.

You can count on it.

It seems you think he is very similar if you believe God has all those same attributes as us You might say he has those attributes, but on a much different scale. However, if God is on a such different scale, why must he have these attributes at all?

Did you go to that link I provided? If so, then you should realize that all statements about God are necessarily symbolic. The attributes that are bothering you are a metaphorical personification of those powers and energies in and through which religious sensibility perceives the divine, the whole, the infinite and eternal imaged in the finite and transitory. All statements about God express what lies beyond their imaginatively devised forms; they are about discernments of meaning in life. Perhaps you"ve heard the word "faith" associated with the word "God", there"s a reason for that.

Rather than get all bunged up worrying about what the word "God" stands for, you should be asking "How is it used?" Don"t think of "God" as referring to any kind of being, think of it as making possible and expressing a certain mode apprehending our own subjective existence, a way of seeing the world as fundamentally personal in nature. The difference between describing a being and expressing a mode of being is fundamental to understanding. Don"t think of God as an explanatory hypothesis, think of God as a way of relating to reality in its most significant aspects as a human being. Faith is a risk, a willed decision in objective uncertainty, a total commitment of the self to the whole of experience. It is a matter of the way you relate yourself, at the deepest level, to whatever meets you in experience.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 4:18:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 11:07:05 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/22/2013 9:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could be a non-sentient mechanism functioning with attributes grander than consciousness and the ability to feel love, and totally different on a scale we couldn't comprehend. Consciousness and love may just be something that helps our particular species survive, and may have absolutely no meaning with regards to God. God could be above everything we hold dear, in a way that God might not even be able to sympathize with or understand. We could be similar to a cosmic virus, replicating and consuming energy until our planet cannot sustain us anymore. A necessary side-effect of some greater function perhaps. Who says the function of this universe has anything at all to do with the well being of humans? Who says God is anything like us, at all? We can love and express consciousness, but who says these things are relevant in the grand scheme of things? God could have properties far more advanced and strange that we could ever perceive, with consciousness and love being petty in comparison, but something we naively hold dear. When natural disasters wipe out innocent people, who is to say that God's attributes are so much similar to humans, that sympathizing with this would be a result?

On the other hand, what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms? This would make us extremely relevant to the function of the universe. All the dead, lifeless galaxies and species deceased on earth, could just be the history books pertaining to God's failed experiments. What if we are the apex of reality, with us being God's goal. Consciousness could be the most important thing in nature, with all of reality being spent guided by a non-sentient mechanism, functioning in way which attempts to raise the probability of consciousness arising. Even if its progress only inches by, bit by bit, for billions of years. God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise. God may not function in a way which favors individual lives, but the species as a whole, as this would be the vessel of consciousness.

I think it's interesting to conceive of a different version of God than the traditional view. Reality could be much more odd than we could ever perceive, or begin to pick up with our self-awareness.

I think that arguments for the personal nature of God and the historicity of Jesus Christ are relevant to your worries.

I don't take the Bible seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors. Also, what arguments for the personal nature of God?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 5:07:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 9:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could be a non-sentient mechanism functioning with attributes grander than consciousness and the ability to feel love, and totally different on a scale we couldn't comprehend. Consciousness and love may just be something that helps our particular species survive, and may have absolutely no meaning with regards to God. God could be above everything we hold dear, in a way that God might not even be able to sympathize with or understand. We could be similar to a cosmic virus, replicating and consuming energy until our planet cannot sustain us anymore. A necessary side-effect of some greater function perhaps. Who says the function of this universe has anything at all to do with the well being of humans? Who says God is anything like us, at all? We can love and express consciousness, but who says these things are relevant in the grand scheme of things? God could have properties far more advanced and strange that we could ever perceive, with consciousness and love being petty in comparison, but something we naively hold dear. When natural disasters wipe out innocent people, who is to say that God's attributes are so much similar to humans, that sympathizing with this would be a result?

On the other hand, what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms? This would make us extremely relevant to the function of the universe. All the dead, lifeless galaxies and species deceased on earth, could just be the history books pertaining to God's failed experiments. What if we are the apex of reality, with us being God's goal. Consciousness could be the most important thing in nature, with all of reality being spent guided by a non-sentient mechanism, functioning in way which attempts to raise the probability of consciousness arising. Even if its progress only inches by, bit by bit, for billions of years. God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise. God may not function in a way which favors individual lives, but the species as a whole, as this would be the vessel of consciousness.

I think it's interesting to conceive of a different version of God than the traditional view. Reality could be much more odd than we could ever perceive, or begin to pick up with our self-awareness.

The main problem is that, we human, as a specie, don't usually take much interest in the objects that do not at least share some similarity with us, let alone worship them. Since God is a symbolic existence, people won't take him seriously if he is utterly devoid of any conciseness or something that human beings hold dearly. So the question is: why should we care if God does not even care about us?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 5:17:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 4:18:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 11:07:05 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/22/2013 9:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could be a non-sentient mechanism functioning with attributes grander than consciousness and the ability to feel love, and totally different on a scale we couldn't comprehend. Consciousness and love may just be something that helps our particular species survive, and may have absolutely no meaning with regards to God. God could be above everything we hold dear, in a way that God might not even be able to sympathize with or understand. We could be similar to a cosmic virus, replicating and consuming energy until our planet cannot sustain us anymore. A necessary side-effect of some greater function perhaps. Who says the function of this universe has anything at all to do with the well being of humans? Who says God is anything like us, at all? We can love and express consciousness, but who says these things are relevant in the grand scheme of things? God could have properties far more advanced and strange that we could ever perceive, with consciousness and love being petty in comparison, but something we naively hold dear. When natural disasters wipe out innocent people, who is to say that God's attributes are so much similar to humans, that sympathizing with this would be a result?

On the other hand, what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms? This would make us extremely relevant to the function of the universe. All the dead, lifeless galaxies and species deceased on earth, could just be the history books pertaining to God's failed experiments. What if we are the apex of reality, with us being God's goal. Consciousness could be the most important thing in nature, with all of reality being spent guided by a non-sentient mechanism, functioning in way which attempts to raise the probability of consciousness arising. Even if its progress only inches by, bit by bit, for billions of years. God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise. God may not function in a way which favors individual lives, but the species as a whole, as this would be the vessel of consciousness.

I think it's interesting to conceive of a different version of God than the traditional view. Reality could be much more odd than we could ever perceive, or begin to pick up with our self-awareness.

I think that arguments for the personal nature of God and the historicity of Jesus Christ are relevant to your worries.

I don't take the Bible seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors. Also, what arguments for the personal nature of God?

This would be a good place to start, I'd say:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Also, what do you mean by the Bible having "factual" errors and how does that relate to the historicity of Jesus Christ?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 5:33:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 5:17:11 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/23/2013 4:18:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 11:07:05 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/22/2013 9:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could be a non-sentient mechanism functioning with attributes grander than consciousness and the ability to feel love, and totally different on a scale we couldn't comprehend. Consciousness and love may just be something that helps our particular species survive, and may have absolutely no meaning with regards to God. God could be above everything we hold dear, in a way that God might not even be able to sympathize with or understand. We could be similar to a cosmic virus, replicating and consuming energy until our planet cannot sustain us anymore. A necessary side-effect of some greater function perhaps. Who says the function of this universe has anything at all to do with the well being of humans? Who says God is anything like us, at all? We can love and express consciousness, but who says these things are relevant in the grand scheme of things? God could have properties far more advanced and strange that we could ever perceive, with consciousness and love being petty in comparison, but something we naively hold dear. When natural disasters wipe out innocent people, who is to say that God's attributes are so much similar to humans, that sympathizing with this would be a result?

On the other hand, what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms? This would make us extremely relevant to the function of the universe. All the dead, lifeless galaxies and species deceased on earth, could just be the history books pertaining to God's failed experiments. What if we are the apex of reality, with us being God's goal. Consciousness could be the most important thing in nature, with all of reality being spent guided by a non-sentient mechanism, functioning in way which attempts to raise the probability of consciousness arising. Even if its progress only inches by, bit by bit, for billions of years. God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise. God may not function in a way which favors individual lives, but the species as a whole, as this would be the vessel of consciousness.

I think it's interesting to conceive of a different version of God than the traditional view. Reality could be much more odd than we could ever perceive, or begin to pick up with our self-awareness.

I think that arguments for the personal nature of God and the historicity of Jesus Christ are relevant to your worries.

I don't take the Bible seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors. Also, what arguments for the personal nature of God?


This would be a good place to start, I'd say:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I know Craig's argument for a personal cause over a mechanical cause, and his argument with regards to abstract object's lack of causality, and the requirement of a mind. I was hoping you would link me to arguments that aren't easy to undermine. If the meaning of your post was to let me know those arguments are out there, then thanks, but I'm already aware.


Also, what do you mean by the Bible having "factual" errors and how does that relate to the historicity of Jesus Christ?

Fair enough. Most historians believe that Jesus Christ existed, but this doesn't mean we jump to conclusions with regards to supernatural events. We know that Julius Caeser existed, but that doesn't mean we teach our children that all the supernatural things written about him were true as well. People have always attached supernatural powers to idols. So, supernatural aspects should be taken with a grain of salt.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 12:32:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've thought about this kind of stuff before. That's why people ask me stuff like "would your God do this" and "how do you explain this" and there are time's where I will honestly say: I don't know what God is. I can't comprehend the mind of a being like that and I'm not in a position to try.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 1:54:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 9:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I think it's interesting to conceive of a different version of God than the traditional view. Reality could be much more odd than we could ever perceive, or begin to pick up with our self-awareness.

What is the "traditional view"? In your opinion, of course.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:07:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 4:18:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't take the Bible seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors. Also, what arguments for the personal nature of God?

You seem to be hell bent on arguing about something other than God and calling it God. First and foremost, God is a Spirit, not a thing, objectifying God as a thing is considered idolatry. It"s like you insist on a childlike conception of God as a bearded man in the sky you don't believe in and you want believers to agree with your definition and argue that we do believe in a bearded man in the sky, but we don"t, nobody believes in the God you don"t believe in.

You have an agenda and an agenda based type of scrutiny specifically designed to serve your agenda. It"s a special approach to arguing about God that is designed to only be applied to God and nothing else, And of course nothing else would measure up to your approach either, that is not logical, it is just an agenda, and it has nothing to do with logic or valid reasoning. The existence of matter itself would not hold up to your agenda based approach to scrutiny. With your approach the existence of matter would be denied in this way.

You believers in matter say that matter exists, it"s a thing, but you say that particles of matter can orbitally jump from place to place without traveling the distance in between? Things don"t do that, maybe you should consider that matter doesn't have the attributes you say it has. You say it can present itself as a particle and a wave, that is a contradiction, a thing can"t be a particle and a wave. "How do you know matter possesses attributes like particle and wave, I understand completely what particles and waves are." Temporally, a wave has a periodicity, and spatially, it is spread out in space, a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space. A particle has a discrete location in time and space, a wave does not, it is spread out over a large region of space and time. A wave has an amplitude and a frequency, it exhibits the phenomena of diffraction and diffusion, a particle does not. They are indeed mutually exclusive properties, so matter cannot be both a wave and a particle. Matter must not exist, so why do you believe in matter?

"I don't take Science seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors."

And in the end, that is your agenda, you want to laugh at believers and pretend to be superior. The problem is that your childlike conception of God isn't very convincing if you want to pretend to be superior, it looks childlike rather than logical, uninformed rather than knowledgeable, and it certainly isn't going to leave anyone thinking you are superior.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:31:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:48:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 6:58:38 AM, natoast wrote:
nice. This is the kind of thinking, actually, that drew me away from Christianity. but how could god desire for consciousness and try to make it without it?

I never said God would "desire" consciousness, I said God might function in a way which tends to raise the probability of consciousness.

You also said "what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms?" How does something that isn't conscious "try".

You also spoke of "God's failed experiments" and went on to say"with us being God's goal". How does an unconscious thing conduct experiments with a goal?

You went on to say "God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise." How does something that is not conscious mess around trying to get the recipe right?

Seems you have an illogical tendency to anthropomorphize this nonconscious God of yours.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:40:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 7:31:07 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:48:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 6:58:38 AM, natoast wrote:
nice. This is the kind of thinking, actually, that drew me away from Christianity. but how could god desire for consciousness and try to make it without it?

I never said God would "desire" consciousness, I said God might function in a way which tends to raise the probability of consciousness.

You also said "what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms?" How does something that isn't conscious "try".

You also spoke of "God's failed experiments" and went on to say"with us being God's goal". How does an unconscious thing conduct experiments with a goal?

You went on to say "God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise." How does something that is not conscious mess around trying to get the recipe right?

Seems you have an illogical tendency to anthropomorphize this nonconscious God of yours.

You said "I understand completely what judging, wisdom and knowledge are. Meaning if God has these attributes, he is much like a human."

I will say that I understand completely what "trying",
"experiments", "goals", "messing around", and "getting the recipe right" are. Meaning if God has these attributes, he is conscious."
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:29:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 7:31:07 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:48:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 6:58:38 AM, natoast wrote:
nice. This is the kind of thinking, actually, that drew me away from Christianity. but how could god desire for consciousness and try to make it without it?

I never said God would "desire" consciousness, I said God might function in a way which tends to raise the probability of consciousness.

You also said "what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms?" How does something that isn't conscious "try".

How not? If a seed produced a flower that dies right away, it "tried" and failed. That doesn't make the seed conscious.


You also spoke of "God's failed experiments" and went on to say"with us being God's goal". How does an unconscious thing conduct experiments with a goal?

How not? A seeds goal seems to be to produce a flower, without consciousness.


You went on to say "God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise." How does something that is not conscious mess around trying to get the recipe right?

How not? These are all things that don't require consciousness.


Seems you have an illogical tendency to anthropomorphize this nonconscious God of yours.

Nope, that's what you are doing actually.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:29:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 7:40:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:31:07 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:48:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 6:58:38 AM, natoast wrote:
nice. This is the kind of thinking, actually, that drew me away from Christianity. but how could god desire for consciousness and try to make it without it?

I never said God would "desire" consciousness, I said God might function in a way which tends to raise the probability of consciousness.

You also said "what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms?" How does something that isn't conscious "try".

You also spoke of "God's failed experiments" and went on to say"with us being God's goal". How does an unconscious thing conduct experiments with a goal?

You went on to say "God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise." How does something that is not conscious mess around trying to get the recipe right?

Seems you have an illogical tendency to anthropomorphize this nonconscious God of yours.

You said "I understand completely what judging, wisdom and knowledge are. Meaning if God has these attributes, he is much like a human."

I will say that I understand completely what "trying",
"experiments", "goals", "messing around", and "getting the recipe right" are. Meaning if God has these attributes, he is conscious."

None of those things require consciousness though.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:31:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 7:07:25 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/23/2013 4:18:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't take the Bible seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors. Also, what arguments for the personal nature of God?

You seem to be hell bent on arguing about something other than God and calling it God. First and foremost, God is a Spirit, not a thing, objectifying God as a thing is considered idolatry. It"s like you insist on a childlike conception of God as a bearded man in the sky you don't believe in and you want believers to agree with your definition and argue that we do believe in a bearded man in the sky, but we don"t, nobody believes in the God you don"t believe in.

You have an agenda and an agenda based type of scrutiny specifically designed to serve your agenda. It"s a special approach to arguing about God that is designed to only be applied to God and nothing else, And of course nothing else would measure up to your approach either, that is not logical, it is just an agenda, and it has nothing to do with logic or valid reasoning. The existence of matter itself would not hold up to your agenda based approach to scrutiny. With your approach the existence of matter would be denied in this way.

You believers in matter say that matter exists, it"s a thing, but you say that particles of matter can orbitally jump from place to place without traveling the distance in between? Things don"t do that, maybe you should consider that matter doesn't have the attributes you say it has. You say it can present itself as a particle and a wave, that is a contradiction, a thing can"t be a particle and a wave. "How do you know matter possesses attributes like particle and wave, I understand completely what particles and waves are." Temporally, a wave has a periodicity, and spatially, it is spread out in space, a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space. A particle has a discrete location in time and space, a wave does not, it is spread out over a large region of space and time. A wave has an amplitude and a frequency, it exhibits the phenomena of diffraction and diffusion, a particle does not. They are indeed mutually exclusive properties, so matter cannot be both a wave and a particle. Matter must not exist, so why do you believe in matter?

"I don't take Science seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors."

And in the end, that is your agenda, you want to laugh at believers and pretend to be superior. The problem is that your childlike conception of God isn't very convincing if you want to pretend to be superior, it looks childlike rather than logical, uninformed rather than knowledgeable, and it certainly isn't going to leave anyone thinking you are superior.

"I don't take Science seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors."

This is a self-refuting statement. You obviously take science seriously or you would have no reason to use your computer (which science created) to type that lol Even the first line of The Bible is false, so your comparison here makes no sense.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 2:35:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:31:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:07:25 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/23/2013 4:18:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't take the Bible seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors. Also, what arguments for the personal nature of God?

You seem to be hell bent on arguing about something other than God and calling it God. First and foremost, God is a Spirit, not a thing, objectifying God as a thing is considered idolatry. It"s like you insist on a childlike conception of God as a bearded man in the sky you don't believe in and you want believers to agree with your definition and argue that we do believe in a bearded man in the sky, but we don"t, nobody believes in the God you don"t believe in.

You have an agenda and an agenda based type of scrutiny specifically designed to serve your agenda. It"s a special approach to arguing about God that is designed to only be applied to God and nothing else, And of course nothing else would measure up to your approach either, that is not logical, it is just an agenda, and it has nothing to do with logic or valid reasoning. The existence of matter itself would not hold up to your agenda based approach to scrutiny. With your approach the existence of matter would be denied in this way.

You believers in matter say that matter exists, it"s a thing, but you say that particles of matter can orbitally jump from place to place without traveling the distance in between? Things don"t do that, maybe you should consider that matter doesn't have the attributes you say it has. You say it can present itself as a particle and a wave, that is a contradiction, a thing can"t be a particle and a wave. "How do you know matter possesses attributes like particle and wave, I understand completely what particles and waves are." Temporally, a wave has a periodicity, and spatially, it is spread out in space, a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space. A particle has a discrete location in time and space, a wave does not, it is spread out over a large region of space and time. A wave has an amplitude and a frequency, it exhibits the phenomena of diffraction and diffusion, a particle does not. They are indeed mutually exclusive properties, so matter cannot be both a wave and a particle. Matter must not exist, so why do you believe in matter?

"I don't take Science seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors."

And in the end, that is your agenda, you want to laugh at believers and pretend to be superior. The problem is that your childlike conception of God isn't very convincing if you want to pretend to be superior, it looks childlike rather than logical, uninformed rather than knowledgeable, and it certainly isn't going to leave anyone thinking you are superior.

"I don't take Science seriously, it's hard to get through it without laughing due to all the factual errors."

This is a self-refuting statement. You obviously take science seriously or you would have no reason to use your computer (which science created) to type that lol

The bolded statements were obviously paraphrasing your nonsense, I can't believe you didn't grasp that LOL.

Even the first line of The Bible is false, so your comparison here makes no sense.

So you believe the first line of the Bible is false, so what, that is just a metaphysical assertion that is based solely on your faith. Sorry kiddie, pretending to be superior with inane faith based statements of opinion just isn't very convincing. You'll have to do better than that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 2:42:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:29:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:31:07 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:48:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 6:58:38 AM, natoast wrote:
nice. This is the kind of thinking, actually, that drew me away from Christianity. but how could god desire for consciousness and try to make it without it?

I never said God would "desire" consciousness, I said God might function in a way which tends to raise the probability of consciousness.

You also said "what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms?" How does something that isn't conscious "try".

How not? If a seed produced a flower that dies right away, it "tried" and failed. That doesn't make the seed conscious.


You also spoke of "God's failed experiments" and went on to say"with us being God's goal". How does an unconscious thing conduct experiments with a goal?

How not? A seeds goal seems to be to produce a flower, without consciousness.


You went on to say "God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise." How does something that is not conscious mess around trying to get the recipe right?

How not? These are all things that don't require consciousness.

Maybe your reply didn't require consciousness, but messing around to get the recipe right does.

Seems you have an illogical tendency to anthropomorphize this nonconscious God of yours.

Nope, that's what you are doing actually.

Oooh, the dreaded "I'm rubber, you're glue" debate tactic, good one kiddie...you're really good at this logical debate thing lol.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 5:29:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My problem with your logic is what is your definition of God. Depending on your definition that could change what you end up labeling God.
Sui_Generis
Posts: 493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 10:29:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 9:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could be a non-sentient mechanism functioning with attributes grander than consciousness and the ability to feel love, and totally different on a scale we couldn't comprehend. Consciousness and love may just be something that helps our particular species survive, and may have absolutely no meaning with regards to God. God could be above everything we hold dear, in a way that God might not even be able to sympathize with or understand. We could be similar to a cosmic virus, replicating and consuming energy until our planet cannot sustain us anymore. A necessary side-effect of some greater function perhaps. Who says the function of this universe has anything at all to do with the well being of humans? Who says God is anything like us, at all? We can love and express consciousness, but who says these things are relevant in the grand scheme of things? God could have properties far more advanced and strange that we could ever perceive, with consciousness and love being petty in comparison, but something we naively hold dear. When natural disasters wipe out innocent people, who is to say that God's attributes are so much similar to humans, that sympathizing with this would be a result?

On the other hand, what if this strange and complex God was blindly trying to obtain consciousness though organisms? This would make us extremely relevant to the function of the universe. All the dead, lifeless galaxies and species deceased on earth, could just be the history books pertaining to God's failed experiments. What if we are the apex of reality, with us being God's goal. Consciousness could be the most important thing in nature, with all of reality being spent guided by a non-sentient mechanism, functioning in way which attempts to raise the probability of consciousness arising. Even if its progress only inches by, bit by bit, for billions of years. God may have even created many universes before ours, messing around with chemistry and physics trying to the get the recipe right for a world where consciousness could arise. God may not function in a way which favors individual lives, but the species as a whole, as this would be the vessel of consciousness.

I think it's interesting to conceive of a different version of God than the traditional view. Reality could be much more odd than we could ever perceive, or begin to pick up with our self-awareness.

Sooooooo this?
"Mundus vult decipi--the world wants to be deceived. The truth is too complex and frightening; the taste for the truth is an acquired taste that few acquire."
-Martin Buber, I and Thou
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 6:40:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What if "God" isn't what you think? Then I'll still have nothing to worry about. If he/she/supreme being/ presence, is what I think, then millions upon millions have plenty to worry about.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%