Forums > Social Chat > How we can never know how God thinks...
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
Ok, this is likely to be a very touchy subject for many, however it has come up in the below thread what happened to my baby today
I'd like to put forward my (rather strong) opinion on comments that I hear constantly from non-believers and believers alike...
My beef is with people who think they understand the reasons why God does things...And then explain away why that reason is now defunct, and so they don't have to do it any longer.
There is no way any of us could ever understand the motivations of a being as different o us as God is.
Sure, he can communicate with us on our level if he chooses, but there is now way we could ever hope to understand an omnipresent being.
A human, as a linear entity, could never know what how or why a non-linear entity thinks. It just defys explanation to our causal view of the universe.
Do you agree? Disagree? don't know what the h*ll I'm talking about?
Ok, this is likely to be a very touchy subject for many, however it has come up in the below thread what happened to my baby today
I'd like to put forward my (rather strong) opinion on comments that I hear constantly from non-believers and believers alike...
My beef is with people who think they understand the reasons why God does things...And then explain away why that reason is now defunct, and so they don't have to do it any longer.
There is no way any of us could ever understand the motivations of a being as different o us as God is.
Sure, he can communicate with us on our level if he chooses, but there is now way we could ever hope to understand an omnipresent being.
A human, as a linear entity, could never know what how or why a non-linear entity thinks. It just defys explanation to our causal view of the universe.
Do you agree? Disagree? don't know what the h*ll I'm talking about?
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
back from the dead...sort of
884 posts
Location: 43°41'N 79°38'W
884 posts
Location: 43°41'N 79°38'W
Posted:
This is awesome debate!
Dom, I really like your idea that supreme beings would never have to require anything of another being. That's a neat one, and it makes a lot of sense...
------
First to explain the two quotes Charles pointed out.
-------
Charles, you are right. Given my wording, I did seem to be speaking for God's intentions in some parts.
However, I don't pretend to to *know* God's will. I simply extrapolate certain properties of God that would hold true given other things that I believe, which are based on my observations of the world. I think that's what most people do, and I think that most people would realize that if they thought about it for a bit.
As finite beings, all we can do is abstractly guess at the will of God (I.E. create a model). These guesses will be a far cry from the real thing...indeed, we will never reach that goal. But, based on what we do know, and we can extrapolate what God's will would be if those abstractions were true. There's nothing wrong with that. The trouble comes when one thinks (as you rightly say, Charles) that one absolutely has things figured out, and that those abstractions are ready to be set in stone. I have been rasied Catholic, and that is the main problem I have with the Chruch.
Charles, you mentioned that I seem to think that I have grasped the situation completely. Based on what I know, I like to think that have come as close as can be allowed. I do a lot of thinking on the subject, and to me, my personal philosophy fits very in very well with what I know of my religion, other religions, physics, history and technology.
However, I don't pretend to think that I am by any means correct. I don't pretend to know the will or capabilites of God. I simply extrapolate from what I know. And my ideas will change as I discover more about the universe that God has created.
Indeed, the only danger in philosophizing about God is to think that you will ever finish doing so.
I hope I have explained myself a bit better now...
-------
As for the Mr./Mrs God debate, everyone, please continue that in another thread. It's a great topic but its entirely detracting from the excellent debate we have going on here.
// Edit: I left some words out of sentences (typingtoofastagain!)
This is awesome debate!
Dom, I really like your idea that supreme beings would never have to require anything of another being. That's a neat one, and it makes a lot of sense...
------
First to explain the two quotes Charles pointed out.
quote:By those statements, I mean that the God of 2000 years ago (the vengeful white bearded guy sitting in the clouds) was an excellent model of the divine to guide people's behavior and philosophy in the age of emergine civilivation. In this age of computerization and global interaction, we have outlived that model and need to find a new model of the divine based on what we now know. (More on this later.) The idea that we are the mind of God could be one such new model.
- "I think that the God of 2000-some years ago was a construct of the human mind."
- "I believe that we ARE the mind of God."
-------
Charles, you are right. Given my wording, I did seem to be speaking for God's intentions in some parts.
However, I don't pretend to to *know* God's will. I simply extrapolate certain properties of God that would hold true given other things that I believe, which are based on my observations of the world. I think that's what most people do, and I think that most people would realize that if they thought about it for a bit.
As finite beings, all we can do is abstractly guess at the will of God (I.E. create a model). These guesses will be a far cry from the real thing...indeed, we will never reach that goal. But, based on what we do know, and we can extrapolate what God's will would be if those abstractions were true. There's nothing wrong with that. The trouble comes when one thinks (as you rightly say, Charles) that one absolutely has things figured out, and that those abstractions are ready to be set in stone. I have been rasied Catholic, and that is the main problem I have with the Chruch.
Charles, you mentioned that I seem to think that I have grasped the situation completely. Based on what I know, I like to think that have come as close as can be allowed. I do a lot of thinking on the subject, and to me, my personal philosophy fits very in very well with what I know of my religion, other religions, physics, history and technology.
However, I don't pretend to think that I am by any means correct. I don't pretend to know the will or capabilites of God. I simply extrapolate from what I know. And my ideas will change as I discover more about the universe that God has created.
Indeed, the only danger in philosophizing about God is to think that you will ever finish doing so.
I hope I have explained myself a bit better now...
-------
As for the Mr./Mrs God debate, everyone, please continue that in another thread. It's a great topic but its entirely detracting from the excellent debate we have going on here.
// Edit: I left some words out of sentences (typingtoofastagain!)
member
382 posts
Location: Southampton
382 posts
Location: Southampton
Posted:
I agree with Charles on this, he believes a form of agnosticism with is nicely wrapped up in an example that we humans can see.
A goldifsh in a bowl understands it's little World to a certain degree, but never quite conquers and understands it all. A human is no different. What surrounds our 'bowl' is so complex for us to be told what it is would be like us trying to teach a goldfish nuclear physics!
Religions cause boundaries, one different to another, they are pointful but harmful. Let's be the first goldfish to accept we are all in the same bowl!
I agree with Charles on this, he believes a form of agnosticism with is nicely wrapped up in an example that we humans can see.
A goldifsh in a bowl understands it's little World to a certain degree, but never quite conquers and understands it all. A human is no different. What surrounds our 'bowl' is so complex for us to be told what it is would be like us trying to teach a goldfish nuclear physics!
Religions cause boundaries, one different to another, they are pointful but harmful. Let's be the first goldfish to accept we are all in the same bowl!
A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words...
BRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
For Paddy & Salinger and everyone else too,
PAddy. I think I get most of it by now. And I thank you for such an insightful glimpse into the way you think about these issues.
One thing that is still alittle niggling (but, not so bad that I can’t deal with it ).
You mentioned that the God of 2000 years ago was a construct of the human mind at that time. You were correct in as far as anything a human sees or perceives is a construct their mind. But, that construct has no bearing whatsoever on the actual thing that prompted the construct to be formed in the first place.
So while a human’s construct of a tree might be something that grows in the ground, drops fruit and is good for burning, that doesn’t change the nature of the tree itself, which is infinitely more complex and incongruous.
Perhaps, with this logic, you feel that God does not actually exist except in people’s minds? If this is the case, then the whole discussion become moot. It turns from a theological, sociological them to a purely psychological and sociological one.
I must admit to having some very indepth talks with people about God, and realising that, subconsciously, they do not believe in God at all. All of their points and issues surround religion and people, rather than God himself. But they keep referring to God as a separate entity, except when a point is being made.
(but of course, I may well have misunderstood you as well.)
Salinger…I thank you for your agreement, however, I am definitely not an agnostic
I do believe in God, and I believe most of the scriptures as well.
So, does this mean you still agree with me?
For Paddy & Salinger and everyone else too,
PAddy. I think I get most of it by now. And I thank you for such an insightful glimpse into the way you think about these issues.
One thing that is still alittle niggling (but, not so bad that I can’t deal with it ).
You mentioned that the God of 2000 years ago was a construct of the human mind at that time. You were correct in as far as anything a human sees or perceives is a construct their mind. But, that construct has no bearing whatsoever on the actual thing that prompted the construct to be formed in the first place.
So while a human’s construct of a tree might be something that grows in the ground, drops fruit and is good for burning, that doesn’t change the nature of the tree itself, which is infinitely more complex and incongruous.
Perhaps, with this logic, you feel that God does not actually exist except in people’s minds? If this is the case, then the whole discussion become moot. It turns from a theological, sociological them to a purely psychological and sociological one.
I must admit to having some very indepth talks with people about God, and realising that, subconsciously, they do not believe in God at all. All of their points and issues surround religion and people, rather than God himself. But they keep referring to God as a separate entity, except when a point is being made.
(but of course, I may well have misunderstood you as well.)
Salinger…I thank you for your agreement, however, I am definitely not an agnostic
I do believe in God, and I believe most of the scriptures as well.
So, does this mean you still agree with me?
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
back from the dead...sort of
884 posts
Location: 43°41'N 79°38'W
884 posts
Location: 43°41'N 79°38'W
Posted:
How did this ger bumped? Nothing new was added...
Charles, I have been meaning to get back to you on your last post but haven't had the time...will see if I can before I go to sleep tonight.
How did this ger bumped? Nothing new was added...
Charles, I have been meaning to get back to you on your last post but haven't had the time...will see if I can before I go to sleep tonight.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Well, I can't say as to what train of thought I fall under on this topic. I have studied many religions, from Christianity, to Gnostics, Buddhism, Taosim, Zen, Islam, and all sorts of philosophy, basically to clear up this question for myself. So here is my take on the religious question I spose.
If everything sprung from one being, why even think of that being in the terms we seem to? Why does God have to be concious? I think of God more as the One if you will. I think of it in one of two ways...
God is the universe, and as such we are truly created in his image, as everything is. I could go into superstring quantum physics and symetries and stuff here to explain it from a scientific point of view as well, but I'll skip that. If that is true, then we are God (David, I believe "Know ye not that ye are God?"), and God's conciousness is our own. There is no duality, we are all one and connected and it is only our seperate ego sense of "ourself" that is our seperation from God. Several Buddhist schools believe along this line.
Another way to think of it is an analogy to dreaming. If we did spring from God's conciousness, then you could think of it in terms of your dreams. If this is all God's ultimate dream, then we are all still God (Are ones thoughts not part of ones self?), and therefore the only laws that bind us are those that we as a group believe in. So as for the original post, your beliefs are your own. If you truly believe that this or that ritual or act needs to be done, then it does for your belief system. It exists as law because of your belief in it.
I am more of the mind that as we are all one and connected, we are free to do anything we wish regardless of writ or law. It is only those things that we agree to abide to that we are bound to obey. Much of what I am allowed and not allowed to do I never agreed to, I was just born into because of my location. Religious orthodoxy just seems to do the same thing, only extended across national bounderies. I prefer to think that I am born free. Also under my view point, it's stupid for me to attack someone, as I would just be harming myself, so "law" is obsolete, and "morality" of a slightly religious sort is my guiding light.
I think the more important question is whether it is right to force your own beliefs on someone else (a young child). I mention this only in passing because I was raised a Christian and turned away from it because of my being forced into it, but I am weird in many ways so.... hehe However many, many other people around the world partake in these same basic rituals without causing overt harm, and their intentions are good (which contemporary ethics tells us is the main point), so it is a matter of choice. If you must fullfill your own perceived religious obligations through the minor discomfort of another, because of your well intentions, the whole of you should come out ahead from the experience.
Selah selah my friend! And congratulations on this important day in your childs life!
Well, I can't say as to what train of thought I fall under on this topic. I have studied many religions, from Christianity, to Gnostics, Buddhism, Taosim, Zen, Islam, and all sorts of philosophy, basically to clear up this question for myself. So here is my take on the religious question I spose.
If everything sprung from one being, why even think of that being in the terms we seem to? Why does God have to be concious? I think of God more as the One if you will. I think of it in one of two ways...
God is the universe, and as such we are truly created in his image, as everything is. I could go into superstring quantum physics and symetries and stuff here to explain it from a scientific point of view as well, but I'll skip that. If that is true, then we are God (David, I believe "Know ye not that ye are God?"), and God's conciousness is our own. There is no duality, we are all one and connected and it is only our seperate ego sense of "ourself" that is our seperation from God. Several Buddhist schools believe along this line.
Another way to think of it is an analogy to dreaming. If we did spring from God's conciousness, then you could think of it in terms of your dreams. If this is all God's ultimate dream, then we are all still God (Are ones thoughts not part of ones self?), and therefore the only laws that bind us are those that we as a group believe in. So as for the original post, your beliefs are your own. If you truly believe that this or that ritual or act needs to be done, then it does for your belief system. It exists as law because of your belief in it.
I am more of the mind that as we are all one and connected, we are free to do anything we wish regardless of writ or law. It is only those things that we agree to abide to that we are bound to obey. Much of what I am allowed and not allowed to do I never agreed to, I was just born into because of my location. Religious orthodoxy just seems to do the same thing, only extended across national bounderies. I prefer to think that I am born free. Also under my view point, it's stupid for me to attack someone, as I would just be harming myself, so "law" is obsolete, and "morality" of a slightly religious sort is my guiding light.
I think the more important question is whether it is right to force your own beliefs on someone else (a young child). I mention this only in passing because I was raised a Christian and turned away from it because of my being forced into it, but I am weird in many ways so.... hehe However many, many other people around the world partake in these same basic rituals without causing overt harm, and their intentions are good (which contemporary ethics tells us is the main point), so it is a matter of choice. If you must fullfill your own perceived religious obligations through the minor discomfort of another, because of your well intentions, the whole of you should come out ahead from the experience.
Selah selah my friend! And congratulations on this important day in your childs life!
BRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
It would be preferable if arguments in this thread assumes that the Old Testament, New Testament and maybe even the Qu ran, did actually happen.
Otherwise we aren't really discussing the god that was brought up at the beginning of the thread.
But, people's ideas like I8beefy2 are well worth dsiscussing, hows about their own thread someone?
quote:Because he told us he was!
Why does God have to be concious?
It would be preferable if arguments in this thread assumes that the Old Testament, New Testament and maybe even the Qu ran, did actually happen.
Otherwise we aren't really discussing the god that was brought up at the beginning of the thread.
But, people's ideas like I8beefy2 are well worth dsiscussing, hows about their own thread someone?
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
BRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
in my mind, people who are raised within a faith, but have never made a connection or have a relationship with God, are not spiritual at all.
Simply religious...Make sense or not?
quote:Have you considered that it wa snot, perhaps, god's influence that had Christianity forced upon you? It was likely your parent's own upbringing or some other factor.
I was raised a Christian and turned away from it because of my being forced into it,
in my mind, people who are raised within a faith, but have never made a connection or have a relationship with God, are not spiritual at all.
Simply religious...Make sense or not?
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
member
244 posts
Location: NZ
244 posts
Location: NZ
Posted:
charles people who grow up in a religious family can have spiritual parents. to be religous or be in a religion doesn't mean one is not spiritual, so a person within a relion is able to pass on spirituality to children, although it can seem to be as you put it.
the good book tgb says we can know the secerts of the SPIRIT gods mind only though the holy spirit. this suggests the spirit we like to call god does have some sort of conciousness? the holy spirit is our guide to all matters relating to the christain SPIRIT.
charles people who grow up in a religious family can have spiritual parents. to be religous or be in a religion doesn't mean one is not spiritual, so a person within a relion is able to pass on spirituality to children, although it can seem to be as you put it.
the good book tgb says we can know the secerts of the SPIRIT gods mind only though the holy spirit. this suggests the spirit we like to call god does have some sort of conciousness? the holy spirit is our guide to all matters relating to the christain SPIRIT.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com