What is your god like? (20 Viewers)

[rounder]

*confused*

Al-Muntaqim 81 The Avenger
Al-Afu 82 The Forgiver

This is why I don't take religion literally.

There are many contradictions and perhaps the poster is not really getting the message here. I think these descriptions were meant to depict one truly significant image, that God is everything and nothing. I think these contradictions symbolize the mystery of God's nature. That simply, God is good but we will never understand God, we re incapable of doing so.

I am not a muslem andI lack a basic understanding of the Qur'an but viewing the descriptions symbolically makes much more sense to me than doing so literally.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

Al-Muntaqim 81 The Avenger
Al-Afu 82 The Forgiver

This is why I don't take religion literally.

There are many contradictions and perhaps the poster is not really getting the message here. I think these descriptions were meant to depict one truly significant image, that God is everything and nothing. I think these contradictions symbolize the mystery of God's nature. That simply, God is good but we will never understand God, we re incapable of doing so.

I am not a muslem andI lack a basic understanding of the Qur'an but viewing the descriptions symbolically makes much more sense to me than doing so literally.

Don't you mean supernature?

Let's be honest, they are completely meaningless. It's as if they described a pantheon of gods, each of whom had a different personality, like the greek gods. That made a lot of sense. Now you have one god with every attribute and they all negate each other.

 

[Azzurri7]

I think I saw god today. She's a god and I'm 100% positive.

 

[rounder]

Don't you mean supernature?

Let's be honest, they are completely meaningless. It's as if they described a pantheon of gods, each of whom had a different personality, like the greek gods. That made a lot of sense. Now you have one god with every attribute and they all negate each other.

I agree, they don't make sense. I just suggested that if the poster was persistent in believing what he posted, perhaps he should look a little deeper.


That's why my definition of God is limitless, I don't believe any of the attributes any of the religions give to God. Because even if there was any truth to them, there is no possible logical way for me finding out, is there? How can I know which religion is speaking the truth when they all contradict each other?

I am content with believing that God's nature is unknowable.

Since He is supernatural, we cannot possible affiliate natural qualities to him. It is meaningless.

 

[Martin]

That's why my definition of God is limitless, I don't believe any of the attributes any of the religions give to God. Because even if there was any truth to them, there is no possible logical way for me finding out, is there? How can I know which religion is speaking the truth when they all contradict each other?

I am content with believing that God's nature is unknowable.

Since He is supernatural, we cannot possible affiliate natural qualities to him. It is meaningless.

Totally agree. But, in addition, if it's unknowable I think it's an utter waste of time thinking about it. If something is unknowable you cannot so much as confirm its existence.

 

[JBF]

Its not fact, its a fictional book written by men.

When people talk about divine inspiration, reminds of an interview in which someone asked Bill Maher (iirc) if god spoke to him, would he become a believer, as this is what happened to them. He responded by saying "no i would check myself into a mental health clinic, and i suggest you do also"

Its a waste of time to keep on this discussion about "believing" when it comes to you. so whats the point of having you interfering in every god damn subject that you do not believe in from the 1st place!
I get it you are an atheist but we are believers so why don't u just find a way to deal with it.

That makes no sence.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Im not an Atheist, im an Anti-theist. Thats why i 'have' to be 'interfeering in every god damn subject'. You cannot called any holy text fact from god. Any religious person with half a mind knows that the religious texts are mostly bs and have adapted their beliefs away from the texts.

 

[abejaa]

Totally agree. But, in addition, if it's unknowable I think it's an utter waste of time thinking about it. If something is unknowable you cannot so much as confirm its existence.

You cannot confirm it's non-existence as well!
I'm not going to argue any more since you have your beliefs and I have mine nothing is going to change!

 

[rounder]

Totally agree. But, in addition, if it's unknowable I think it's an utter waste of time thinking about it. If something is unknowable you cannot so much as confirm its existence.

I know where you're coming from and it isn't irrational. But you don't have to completely comprehend something's nature to have good grounds in knowing it exists. I may never understand the nature of the universe but I now it exists.



I've read many viewpoints from theistic physicists, philosophers, biologists, and chemists from the highest standard, and many of them provide a very compelling case for the existence of God. In physics, you have cosmological and fine-tuning arguments, in chemistry and Biolog, you have the ecomplexity of cellular and DNA activity, in philosophy you have valid arguments and sound conclusions.

If you are earnestly seeking the truth to such matters, I suggest a brilliant book written by a former atheist, in fact, one of the most notorious atheists of the past century, Anthony Flew. His book "There is No God" explains the story of how he converted from atheism to theism(deism) by the basis of follwing Aristotle's "follow the argument where it leads priniciple". Regardless of what his conclusion was, I think his approach is unique in the fact that he was intellectually honest enough to admit he had it all wrong.

Now, I don't believe there is a very good case for the God of religion, but there is an excellent one for God with the unknowable and unattainable naure.

 

[Martin]

I know where you're coming from and it isn't irrational. But you don't have to completely comprehend something's nature to have good grounds in knowing it exists. I may never understand the nature of the universe but I now it exists.

If you know nothing more about the universe, you know that it exists So it's not unknowable.

 

[Lion]

I think I saw god today. She's a god and I'm 100% positive.

pics or it didn't happen.

 

[rounder]

If you know nothing more about the universe, you know that it exists So it's not unknowable.

Fair enough. It is unknowable to know whether human minds, other than my own, are present, yet I do know they exist. They could all be well-engineered robots yet I would never know, could never know.

 

[Martin]

Fair enough. It is unknowable to know whether human minds, other than my own, are present, yet I do know they exist. They could all be well-engineered robots yet I would never know, could never know.

wtf? How do you define a "human mind" then? What precisely is a "mind"? How would you recognize a mind if you saw one?

You could crack open my head and see that it's all made of biological parts, if that would satisfy you.

Robots can have minds too, can't they? So in order to establish that there is a mind you would:
1) establish that there is a mind
2) establish that the organism is human

Seems pretty trivial.

 

[rounder]

wtf? How do you define a "human mind" then? What precisely is a "mind"? How would you recognize a mind if you saw one?

You could crack open my head and see that it's all made of biological parts, if that would satisfy you.

Robots can have minds too, can't they? So in order to establish that there is a mind you would:
1) establish that there is a mind
2) establish that the organism is human

Seems pretty trivial.

Allow me to clarify.

Robots can't have minds, they can only be programmed to do something, albeit very well. This is not the intelligence of the mind. For example, your computer(a machine) displays to you the weather forecasts, the Dow stock exchange, the latest news in the media. However, who reacts to all of the following, it is not your brain or the computer, it is your mind. Your brain is not happy, overjoyed, flustered, angry, disappointed, 'you' are feeling overjoyed. This 'you' is what the mind is.

When I discover that my favourite actor passes away, my brain does not become sad, my brain is merely a transmitter of neurons that indicate to me what I should feel physically and mentally. But who feels? it is the "I" that feels, that responds.

A computer cannot respond to the information it is displaying, it does not have a mind of its own.

I hope I'm making sense here.

How can you know if I have a mind? Well, you can't. That's pecisely the point. My nature is unknowable. You cannot possibly know if I am a human, robot, or alien. You merely assume this, you take it for granted, but can you ever prove it?
No.

 

[Martin]

So you're talking about the brain. All those things are functions of the brain. If you need to check if there is a mind, check if there is a brain.

Robots can have artificial intelligence. Ie. they think. Thinking is not some mythical process, it's something that happens mechanically in the brain. And so are emotions. Anything that happens in a physical brain can be recreated in some sort of mechanical reconstruction. And self awareness (that thing that causes you to have feelings about "yourself") is also a function of intelligence. There have been computer programs written that have a sense of "I".

 

[IrishZebra]

yeah but they can't reason as we do just yet.

either way I stand by my original picture of my god.

 

[rounder]

So you're talking about the brain. All those things are functions of the brain. If you need to check if there is a mind, check if there is a brain.

Robots can have artificial intelligence. Ie. they think. Thinking is not some mythical process, it's something that happens mechanically in the brain. And so are emotions. Anything that happens in a physical brain can be recreated in some sort of mechanical reconstruction. And self awareness (that thing that causes you to have feelings about "yourself") is also a function of intelligence. There have been computer programs written that have a sense of "I".

Awareness of self cannot be mechanical. The robot cannot know he exist .They can be programmed to do so, but they do not do so out of intelligence. Humans do it out of intelligence.

And to answer your question, having a bran does not necessarily mean you have a mind. Say aliens abducted a human and managed to make a carbon copy out him yet control him at the same time, this person is sent back to earth. He is unaware of his existence. This person can very well be me, you can never know? Hence, an unknowable nature.

 

[Martin]

If someone is being remotely controlled, then there must exist some physical communication link between the controller and the person being controlled, yes? So you could detect that. Physical cable, electromagnetic waves, whatever. It's not undetectable.

 

[rounder]

If someone is being remotely controlled, then there must exist some physical communication link between the controller and the person being controlled, yes? So you could detect that. Physical cable, electromagnetic waves, whatever. It's not undetectable.

They could have superior technology to human beings. Something we haven't even discovered yet, let alone be able to detect it. Which is actually very plausible since discoveries are constantly being made through the progression of time. If you asked the greatest scientist a few hundred years ago if he could detect electric waves, do you think he could? They are detectable, yes, but he can't detect them.

Simmilarly, we cannot determine the nature of this alien controlled person, whether or not he has a mind.

 

[Hist]

Let me ask you a question...
Does the principle "every thing is an effect and has a cause" have a cause?