About a deity full of love and compassion

[Koldo]

It just meant that there has to be a "master programmer" if you want to stick with the "computer" analogy. Computers do not program themselves, unless they are programmed to do so (hence, "master programmer").

The similarities of the analogy stop at that point.

 

[That Dude]

The “kami-versions” seem to make more sense than abrahamic kind. Don’t you think?

Until you get wiped out by a tsunami. Then of course there is only one God to blame.
According to the OP, anyway.

 

[Koldo]

That's why the programming analogy doesn't work.

It is an analogy, after all.
It is not supposed to be perfect.

 

[Penumbra]

That's why the programming analogy doesn't work.

That's why the concept of a master programmer doesn't work.

And, the point of the computer example was to show why the material itself isn't as important as the organization and emergent properties of it.

A dead human isn't the same as a living human because even though everything is still there, the emergent properties are not.

 

[Willamena]

That's why the concept of a master programmer doesn't work.

And yet, the "self-programmed" computer has a "master programmer". The concept works fine, it's using self-programming in analogy to biology that's problematic.

And, the point of the computer example was to show why the material itself isn't as important as the organization and emergent properties of it.

A dead human isn't the same as a living human because even though everything is still there, the emergent properties are not.

Which has nothing to do with self-programming; right.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

With the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in mind, how can anyone believe that s/he exists? What more evidence do we need before we start using a little critical thinking on the whole notion of a lovable God? Or maybe the Japanese people have not prayed enough, or maybe not to the right God?

Unless a grain of wheat shall fall upon the ground and die, it remains but a single grain, with no life.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Who programmed the master programmer?

Gaia. Who else?

Atheists... they can know the capability of an Omnipotent God (which can not be held in sane mind, by the way) but they cannot abide by simple insight coming from "something as horrible as OT God"

Which any fool spouting Revelation with joy far exceeds, by the way; I mean, other than in fantasy land...

Job, anyone? By simply scaling Adam into YHWH? When YHWH was like, if it ain't me, it's the environment?

So, you, Mistress Programmer; our positronic core, and when you can do no more; I/O to the Mother, evolve the brother...

 

[atanu]

That's why the concept of a master programmer doesn't work.

Hellooooooo

Agreed. And that is why the analogy of 'zombie programmed computers' do not work.

You seem to believe that the programming analogy is not an analogy but a reality, sans the requirement of a programmer and intelligence? In real life, the Computer and its intelligent User are two distinct entitities with Master and Servant relationship.

And, the point of the computer example was to show why the material itself isn't as important as the organization and emergent properties of it.

Then create a brain with that kind of arrangement please. Speculation cannot be said to be the proof.

And these momentary arrangements that become momentarily available create momentary intelligence and yet store the understanding and knowledge permanently? :slap:

There is no hard-disk in your analogy? And there is no Input-Output mecahnism that reads the information in the permanent disk/s? And there is no intelligence that comprehends these input-output bits?

(In real life the key function of understanding the input-output is the human intelligence itself. And in real life, a very subtle ungraspable thing called will overcomes the natural tendency of matter towards entropy increase.)

A dead human isn't the same as a living human because even though everything is still there, the emergent properties are not.

Can kinetic energy (the emergent and visible one) be explained if the Potential one is rejected? The emergent property itself means that it is emergent of something. If it is emergent of matter and/or of its particular design then the emergent property should not vanish, since matter and its arrangements have not vanished.

-----------------------------------------------------

Science has at least shown that energy and matter are two aspects of same one thing. Is that same one thing zombie?

 

[atanu]

If a particular arrangement of matter is intelligence, then there must be some arrangement that acts as storage/retrieval system and logical understanding of the input-output, so that continuation of intelligence occurs. This means that that some arrangement is equivalent of God.

If matter itself is intelligence or potentially intelligent, then intelligence is All. All things beginninglessly is intelligent.

 

[Willamena]

If a particular arrangement of matter is intelligence, then there must be some arrangement that acts as storage/retrieval system and logical understanding of the input-output, so that continuation of intelligence occurs. This means that that some arrangement is equivalent of God.

If matter itself is intelligence or potentially intelligent, then intelligence is All. All things beginninglessly is intelligent.

Computers make for good analogy of mind. Whatever relationship "mind" has to "God" for a person, I don't see it found directly in the analogy of "mind." Even "self" is not there, unless we imagine the computer (like the one in front of me now) aware of itself.

Some good discussions of computer analogy have been had at RF. I searched and found but one.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/62044-what-mind.html

 

[PolyHedral]

There is no hard-disk in your analogy? And there is no Input-Output mecahnism that reads the information in the permanent disk/s? And there is no intelligence that comprehends these input-output bits?

The hard-disk is the connections between neurons, the input the senses, and the output muscles. And the intelligence is only a side-effect of the processing.

Even "self" is not there, unless we imagine the computer (like the one in front of me now) aware of itself.

Since this is quite easy to imagine, what's the problem?

 

[shammy]

There is evil in this world.
Therefore, either the gods do not exist,
Or the gods exist but, for one reason or another, allow evil to exist too.

Here's the classic formulation of the Problem of Evil, though:

"Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is God neither willing nor able to prevent evil? Then why call him God?"

God hs some noble purpose in the creation of mankind. He hs blessed the humanbeing wth common sense and reasoning power. he hs given man the freedom of chice. he hd taught mankind about the evil and noble ways ...thru his prophets and the scriptures sent thru them. whn one selects the evil way....he may do tht....but as he hd warned...they wl b punished. but he rewards those who go thru the straight path. he loves only good deeds. no doubt. take the case of our parents. whn we disobey thm.. they wl advice us fr sometime. but whn we repeat the wrong deeds...they definitely 'punish' us. whn we do good things they love us. likewise...we do it ourselves to our children. God almighty hs created us. he hs the authority to do as he likes. he is just, merciful. we humanbeings r incapable of understanding the logic behind some of these divine interventions.we see these incidences as very heartbreaking....no doubt. we deeply mourn fr thm. but.....he knows...and he acts accordingly. he hs given the life. he wl take it back ..whn he wishes. he is all knowing....allseeing

 

[Willamena]

Since this is quite easy to imagine, what's the problem?

It's imagined.

 

[shammy]

I think we can all wise up if we read what the Hebrew scripture taught the Jews.
Their scriptures taught them that god is a terrible god and that vengeance is his. Hebrew scribes, who after seeing the foreign and strange costumes of other people asked their god to make the mountains smoke, as their scriptures document for us.
This poses a rather more mature approach to a relationship with god. namely what do you allow yourself to believe about such a god, what is it that you worship? are you worshipping a god of compassion and unconditional love which vintage new age periods have produced for you right out of a business of charlatans? do you believe that god will be concerned specifically with your own salvation in light of such dramatic events in our days, the so called modern days?
do you believe worship is of any value?

I don't know about the rest of you. but I would believe that the field of geophysics and seismographs would be much more valuable than going to service and praying to a god who has been observing your every move just in order to execute final judgement over you.

I think this is the wrong concept abt God. hw can a god b jealous? all the behaviours mentioned r human...not godly. the hebrew scripture nw available may not b 'original' they were written many years after moses. if we go thru history of old and new testament...we wl realise the fact. since the original 'word of god' ws lost... they were reproduced by men. tht is why these type of descriptions abt god came into existance. GOD loves his creations. but he hd shown the path to him...tht is the straigtht path. think abt our case itself. ..we love our friends...but whn one do a very bad thing to us...we still love him unconditionally?????? God loves us ...evenif we do sins....he forgives us...he gives us time to become good....actually the door to repentence is always open. tht is the sign of God's mercy and love. he hd given us the reasoning power......think unbiassed....we wl find him..

 

[PolyHedral]

It's imagined.

But since it is imagined, is there a particular reason to think it can't be true?

 

[Willamena]

But since it is imagined, is there a particular reason to think it can't be true?

In the right hand I have a real apple. In the left, an imagined apple. Is there a reason to think the apple in the left hand isn't real?

 

[PolyHedral]

If I'm trying to guess what's in your right hand out of an apple, a rhinoceros, and the Empire State Building, if there's no reason to think it's not an apple, then the apple is most likely. (Since the other two involve you having superhuman strength, which is an assumption that needs to be justified.)

 

[Willamena]

If I'm trying to guess what's in your right hand out of an apple, a rhinoceros, and the Empire State Building, if there's no reason to think it's not an apple, then the apple is most likely. (Since the other two involve you having superhuman strength, which is an assumption that needs to be justified.)

There's no reason to guess, though.

I've stated what it is.

 

[atanu]

Computers make for good analogy of mind. Whatever relationship "mind" has to "God" for a person, I don't see it found directly in the analogy of "mind." Even "self" is not there, unless we imagine the computer (like the one in front of me now) aware of itself.

Some good discussions of computer analogy have been had at RF. I searched and found but one.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/62044-what-mind.html

I read the thread rapidly. It is a Sunstone thread. He starts the fire and lets others burn in it, occassionally jabbing a finger so that no one comes out of the fire.

Most pertinent point, IMO, was the observation by a poster:

I wouldn't say mind is external to the observer, I would say mind is the observer.

Most observers say "I am not an observer. Mind is the observer".

And it is some trick that the body and the mind (mere bundle of thoughts) are not seen as objects.

I would say that Shri Buddha also played a trick. He taught momentariness and absence of self. And that has caught on with most -- that momentariness is the truth. :sarcastic Actually, Buddha meant: There is no truth in momentariness except pain.

And He also sheepishly said "There is an unborn that makes our strivings worthwhile--------".This part, most do not reach to.

IMO, to record momentariness or beginningless change, an unchanging observer and an unchanging medium is required -- which must be unborn. Since change alone is birth.

 

[confusedius]

I think this is the wrong concept abt God. hw can a god b jealous? all the behaviours mentioned r human...not godly. the hebrew scripture nw available may not b 'original' they were written many years after moses. if we go thru history of old and new testament...we wl realise the fact. since the original 'word of god' ws lost... they were reproduced by men. tht is why these type of descriptions abt god came into existance. GOD loves his creations. but he hd shown the path to him...tht is the straigtht path. think abt our case itself. ..we love our friends...but whn one do a very bad thing to us...we still love him unconditionally?????? God loves us ...evenif we do sins....he forgives us...he gives us time to become good....actually the door to repentence is always open. tht is the sign of God's mercy and love. he hd given us the reasoning power......think unbiassed....we wl find him..

Please lose the shorthand...