Posted on 01/23/2005 12:39:01 PM PST by traviskicks
A metaphysical exploration of Religion, Consciousness, Free Will, Randomness, and, ultimately, the nature of God. Neuroscience, networking (of man, God, and governments), and AI computing are all discussed.
A Theory of God
God has never been defined to the satisfaction of rational man. Indeed, even His very existence has never been universally acknowledged. From Thomas Aquinas's famous '5 proofs of God' (3) and the writings of other great philosophers of the catholic church, to the tautological hierarchical constructions of modern philosophers (1), there has never been a logical argument strong enough to force all the atheists and agnostics of the world to believe.
It has been said that men are only truly passionate about things that are not innately obvious to everyone. (2) The bitter and acrimonious debate over the curvature of the earth that took place in the 15th Century would today be met with laughter and derision because the fact that the earth is a sphere is so obvious to nearly everyone. Although any one religion, or even God Himself, is not universally accepted in the same way, a large majority of people across the world profess a belief in God (over 90% of Americans believe in God (68), (69) ).
However, we must also consider that the vague definitions of God may contribute to His apparent non-universal acknowledgement. If we can't define what something is then how can people communicate their belief in it? It is most interesting is that this lack of definition is present across nearly all the world's religions:
Christianity/Judaism: I am that I am. (Exodus 3, 14) You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live. (Exodus 33:20)
(Excerpt) Read more at neoperspectives.com ...
Thanks for the ping! Personally I believe in God despite the fact that one can not prove the existance to a non-believer. The other fact is that no one can disprove God either. God is beyond our comprehension. The Bible explains to us what God wants us to know at this time, and God constantly reveals more to us individually if we seek. Free will can exist only if fate is limited. Therefore, I don't believe that time exist in a linear fashion, and can not be travelled in at any rate or direction other than what we are already travelling in it. If freewill exist than the future is unwritten, and therefore does not exist until we create it. Fate still exist in the aspect of cause and effect. For example, you can't change where a road leads, but you can change the road you are on. Every action has a reaction. So God knows the future because he knows the consequences of our choices, yet he gives us the power to alter that future. In His image, we are creators too. I don't believe we travel to past either. Time is a creation of man to measure the distance between cause and effect. The only time that truely exist is NOW. Its always now.
oh, I see. yes, for whatever reason we all seem to have our specialty, which we are very, very good at and then everything else is hit or miss.
Pinker says that so much of English, and all languages, is made excessively complicated for little reason.
When kids say "I holded the icecream cone", instead of "I held the icecream cone", who is really correct? The kids are correct, the simplist rule should apply. Language would be much easier to learn if exceptions to rules were eliminated.
In a ghetto, someone might say "I ain't got no" as opposed to "I haven't got any".
if we analyze this functionally, in linguistic terms - ain't is a widely used word that can be substituted in a vast number of circumstances where it's meaning is clear. "I ain't gonna", "Ain't that something?" - it is more efficient then attemptig to differentiate using all these different more 'proper' words like 'havn't' "I'm not", "Isn't".
In, "I haven't got any" - what does 'any' realy mean? Using a double negative, "I ain't got no", makes the sentence more clear. Pinker says that double negatives are used throughout a majority of languages quite frequently. Je ne pense pas - in French is a double negative.
So, ghetto speak is actually more efficient then the gobbly gook coming out of academic conferences. That being said, the fact that some don't take the time to learn proper english etc.. generally indicates that some of the things that you said will be the case.
I just thought the whole perspective was interesting.
As for atheists and agnostics, who cares!
God does.
---
If God is undefined/unknowable etc..., as many people in this thread seem to agree, then how can we believe those who deny a belief in God if they don't know what it is they don't believe in? This is another excerpt:
But perhaps 'the Universe', as undefined by the Buddhists is 'God', as undefined by the Christian/Jewish/Islamic faiths? How can really we know? Both sides don't define what 'God' or the 'Universe' is besides to say they are indefinable!
Continuing this line of thinking, how can even atheists rationally deny a belief in God? Let's say an atheist states he only believes in Good, not in God. Well, does God come from Good or does good come from God? If Good comes from God then this can only mean that there is no such thing as an objective Good, it's merely defined by God's whim. If God comes from Good then it lowers the power of God because Good can exist without Him. Spending too long on this puzzle can soon result in brain rot, as there seems to be no solution available that satisfies the appetite of reason. The unknown nature of God, and perhaps to a lesser extent the unknown nature of Good, combine to artificially create a fallacious intellectual quagmire.
Interesting responses.
--
Free will can exist only if fate is limited.
The only time that truely exist is NOW. Its always now.
--
I am not sure quite what you mean by the first statement, but I believe that as Free Will is expanded the universe becomes MORE complex and unpredictable.
Your second statement is similar to the Buddhist perspective. Yet, your emphasis on God leads me to believe you mesh the two perspectives in a similar way to what was done in this paper. At the end there are some comparisons of Buddhism and Christianity.
Buddism and Christianity have a lot more in common than they have in opposition. Fate, by definition means that everything is pre-determined by an outside source. Freewill is the power granted by God to create our own destiny. I explain it in the same way as a road. You can't change where a road leads, but you can change the road you are on. So fate would be the ultimate consequence of following a certain life path. Fate exists only as an infinte list of possibilities.
Yet we all know when something exists, we all understand the passage of time, and we all recognize the power of love. We can't define these things, but they are indispensible to our whole conception of reality. I don't see why God is any different.
---
Well, one could argue that nothing can truly be defined to one's satisfaction without being experienced.
That being said, time, love, seem to be on a different scale then God. We can point at man and wife, woman and baby, or the clicking of a clock. We may have experienced the feeling of love and understand the general concept of time.
But, when words are used to described God - there isn't even this remote aspect of concreteness that arises when we descibe love and time. It seems that it is in an entirely different category. Which, I might add, is not a bad thing. As someone said earlier, if God could be defined then He would cease to be the God that we believe in - who by definition - is undefinable.
Personally I believe God is a spirit, and has no body, nor need for sexual organs. God is referred to as a father, for that is how God acts. God is referred to in masculine terms, because men were the ones writing. However, Jesus most definitely was male...I'll give you that.
Buddism and Christianity have a lot more in common than they have in opposition.
---
I agree. There are many, many, similarities which seem to be lost in semantic differences. The Buddhist concept of emptiness, is similar (IMO) to the western concept of God.
There is a color coded section in that paper which attempts to document some of the similarities.
I would say that God is the universe, or the intelligent force through out it. God is within all. God is the I Am. The alpha and omega.
Most religions have more in common than they have in opposition. Krishna, and Christ are actually the same word, meaning the annointed one. The story of Krisna is very similar to the story of Christ. IMHO, the message is more important than the messenger. The message of the brotherhood of mankind, and the evil of selfishness. The message that love is the ultimate answer. God is love, and the only devil man should worry about is the one within himself. I sometimes wonder, if the message is the same, maybe the messenger was the same too. Perhaps God, or the "son of God", or "the son of man", intervenes in the evolution of man at the most opportune times, in specific ways to different cultures in a way they can understand.
I agree. Thank you for your tact, brother.
Very well. We've reached a good understanding.
If you are seeking to tenatively define your beliefs, maybe you could give the arguments on my website a try. They basically intimate that the design of the universe and history show Christ to be the representative of God.
http://jdhighness.tripod.com
I also do not believe there is reason to believe there are "good people" if not for their parallel behavior to Christ's. I will be very honest, if I did not fear eternal failure to meet the Creator, I would attempt to maximize my pleasure here on earth, even at other people's expense. Of course, a year + of trying very hard to live a Christian life has changed my natural tendencies, so I no longer think so selfishly as much as I did. Still, without Christ as a motivator that black box atheists/agnostics call "human nature" is not enough to compell me to sacrifice.
I am interested in your thoughts on both my website and my question about moral choice, if you have time.
Thank you for your summary.
Do you believe Pinker?
1--In some situations, yes I do. But who says simplicity of thought is a good thing? I say the harder the language (without being too lofty), the more concentration and effort it takes, and therefore the more mental exersize you get.
2--Also, I find ebonic de-values very appropriate, specialized words that are extremely efficient at conveying specific meaning.
So in the end, I find Pinker's argument, which you appropriately summarized, to be only marginally correct and, I suspect, motivated by other means that true science. This conclusion is not true if he raised the same arguments I did in 1 & 2.
Thank you for your insight and, if you wish, I look forward to your take on it.
I think it is clear that God is to be seen as possessing, in part, characteristics of both man and women.
Jesus, although very aggressive and bold, is also very caring. Jesus in Matthew and Luke shows His nurturing side:
34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me. 35And now look, your house is left to you empty. And you will never see me again until you say, `Bless the one who comes in the name of the Lord!'[d] " (Luke 13)
Also, do you really believe your tagline, or was it to show the sexual identity problems of Kurt Cobaine? I am not trying to judge him; I saw on a documentary that he had problems with masculinity.
hmm... You sum up my feelings pretty well with Pinker. I'm not sure - it is what it is. I think it is an interesting way to view it, but that yes, despite the innate problems with human expression, more is better then less. I am not neccesarily sure if Ebonics type language is always in conflict with this or not.
Of course, I think I agree with Pinker over the 'holded' and 'held' idea - needless complication that doesn't convey any more accurate meaning.
You state the following:
"I would attempt to maximize my pleasure here on earth, even at other people's expense."
I think such actions would bring you the exact opposite of what you desire - here on earth.
This is another excerpt:
In cases where an individual chooses not to follow God's will the situation can turn tragic. Struggling against the will of God is most difficult because everything around them is likely moving with God, while he/she stands alone. In the name of short term pleasure, sadistic delight, or the thrill of a power trip, this individual will spiral down into a well of rage, hate, malice, and insanity. Near their end, it is reported that Hitler and Stalin suffered severe psychological breakdown and bouts of depression, anxieties, and nervous ticks. (43), (44) Henry XVIII, Nero, Hermann Goering, Saddam Hussein, Uday Hussein, Ali Hassan al-Majid (Chemical Ali), Charles Mason, and Pol Pot have all been described as, delusional, raging, depressed, and mad. (45), (46) Indeed, all evil men (and women) eventually destroy themselves. Yet, many will kindle a fire and consume themselves. (Isaiah 26:11) What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All of these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'. (Mark 7:7) Those unrelentingly cruel ones, objects of compassion, Maddened by delusion's evils, wantonly destroy themselves and others. (47) (Tenzin Gyatso) We have great compassion for them, because they do not know the truth. They destroy Buddhism-they destroy themselves. (48) (Maha Ghosananda)
Or, perhaps it is better said that they chose to be destroyed by God?
They encourage wickedness in an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them? They search out iniquities; they accomplish a diligent search: both the inward thought of every one of them, and the heart, is deep. But God shall shoot at them with an arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded. So they shall make their own tongue to fall upon wickedness: all that see them shall flee away. (Psalms 51-75)
Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness. Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. Psalms (51-75)
What do heaven and hell really represent? They are said not to be physical substances and not be present on Earth. We have established that Consciousness shares these qualities. It is clear that good compassionate deeds bring forth their own reward and evil deeds sow their own pain and misery. Perhaps Heaven and Hell, as defined as such, are being experienced in real time. In thinking about our true fate after death we must abandon rationality and work off faith.
Very interesting. I believe the military/cia has things like this they are researching, I recall some stories about it.
Imagine if such a device could be shrunk so it was only in like a head-band. People with various mental disorders would profit infinitely if more was known.
Once I get some time I will try to look up some papers on it. That link was big on description, but short on science.
lol - he was a draft doger too. :)
"If I knew Him I'd be Him."
In the West, the belief that man can solve and understand any problem (the so-called Age of Reason) is the epitome of pride and arrogance -- in other words sin.
God is known to us through His energies (manifestations), but the essence of God is not only unknown but unknowable because we are not one and the same: God is uncreated; everything else is created.
We don't see gravity, yet we know it exists and we know it because things fall on earth, planets have moons, suns have planets, etc. Do we understand gravity? Not at all! And yet it is here. We have no clue as to why gravity exists! We simply say, it is a "property" of mass.
But gravity is part of the created world. How do we know it is created? Because it is structured. When you see a house -- do you doubt that it was designed and built by someone? Or do you think it just appeared? When you see beautiful gardens, do you think they just grew there? But when you see organized Universe, some think it just appeared!
As for out abilities, we are nowhere. With all our great strides in science and technology, we cannot make an ant; we cannot make it see and sense; reporduce and live. It's like comparing a Leggo car with a Ferrari.
The tool cannot know its maker, although the Maker's energies are manifested in the tool. God made us in His image by giving us a mind, a word and a spirit. No other lving creature has that. With these we understand and experience God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit. Love, mercy and justice are not concepts we find in "Nature". They are not physical and they exist apart from our physical self. Reason cannot penetrate them, define them; they have no shape, no time limit, not restrained by space, yet we "know" what they are -- vaguely perhaps -- but even a child knows them. Even an animal knows what feels good.
So, trying to figure out God is a hopless approach that, as you said, ends up in brain rot. God can be approached in spirit. If you don't believe, it is because of pride and arrogance -- veiled with reason or agnostic non-commitment. Such is our nature, for some even use religion to justify their pride and arrogance. Most people accept God conditionally -- "if I go to church then God should save me" or "If I am good then I deserve to go to heaven." And when they don't get what they want or if we lose someone -- we turn on God. God is good only as long as we get what we ask for. No one ever thinks that life is not guaranteed and that all who are born will die, the question is not if but only when, and the time is not ours to determine. The fact is, we have no right to life. No one will keep his or hers. Not one, no matter how deserving or how undeserving, how rich and how poor. Life is a loan that everyone has to repay. How many truly accept the words "Thy will be done" in complete peace?
Very well researched and I agree for some pleasures.
What really intriqued me at first about Christianity was its absolute discipline in all areas of life, including even thought! That we could be judged on thoughts intimated that this religion had to have objective backing or else NO ONE would choose it.
Another thing about Christianity is the prohibition on enjoying one of our most basic drives: sex. It is so easy to achieve, so pleasurable (in theory for me), and so easy to rationalize away with today's culture. Yet we are still to keep it highly restricted under Christ. That, I think would be a deal breaker if there ever was one.
If you believe the consciousness lives beyond death, then hell would be separation from the Creator who created the universe and consciousness. Though I agree that many people who experienced a hell on earth, sadly, are now separated from God for eternity. To me eternal isolation in the "outer darkness" as Jesus puts it seems intolerable for only a short time, much less an eternity. That, at first, was a primary motivation to accelerate Christianizing my life.
Sorry if that ran on a bit! I do enjoy talking with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.