Does your spiritual God interact with the physical world?

[Beaudreaux]

I think that be up to you to decide what you want to believe. :beach:

True dat! However, I am asking what you believe. I am trying to understand what makes you say the story of Job was a parable but (perhaps) the story of the Jewish exodus out of Egypt or the story of Jesus healing a leper were not.

 

[blackout]

Putting aside my general sense that either everything is god,
or nothing is.... I'm wondering this-

Could we possibly "know" a thing at all,
if we did not "know it" in the physical world?

I mean, how could you even concieve of a thing,
(idea, invention, vision, intuition, construction, belief, sense'ability...)
if you had not already had some tangible experience
of at least the general components of the composite construction.

I tend to think that physical/spiritual/emotional/mental
all reflect one another/are reflections of one another... in tandem.
Or perhaps really, they are in actuality just different perceptions/view points
of the very same thing/s.

I do not think we could even concieve of the existence of a thing,
if we could not relate/translate the idea
to what is tangible. (holdable/underStandAble).
What can we concieve of that is not SOME variation of/on our ACTUAL Real Life experience?

 

[blackout]

In short form,

God IS the physical UniVerse
and all it includes.
(including the spiritual, emotional, mental, intuitive... etc etc)

or

God is an idea we have about the physical UniVerse,
(often personified, as mythology and literature)
and everything it includes.

or

Sometimes "God" is our favorite chosen aspect/s
of the UniVerse (seperated out from all it includes)

or

"God" is just a word (set of letters and spoken syllables)
we feel no inclination to define.

 

[waitasec]

None of the stories is "questionable". I meant that it is questionable whether or not they are literal or not. The entire book of Job is a parable, for example. Since they can't prove whether King David truly existed or was just the subject of another parable, I have to decide (I do believe that King David did indeed exist).

sure ok
king david had to exist because of the lineage of jesus, correct?

is the OT the only testament you would consider some stories to be taken as parables? would you consider any story in the NT not to be taken literally, other than the parables jesus spoke of?

 

[Willamena]

None of the stories is "questionable". I meant that it is questionable whether or not they are literal or not. The entire book of Job is a parable, for example. Since they can't prove whether King David truly existed or was just the subject of another parable, I have to decide (I do believe that King David did indeed exist).

Or truly existed and was the subject of a parable.

 

[AxisMundi]

That's not an example I would use since I believe the story to be symbolic, as a lot of us do and not literal.

I don't want you to feel insulted since you seem like a pretty good person, but...

If the Adam and Eve story is a parable/symboloic, that means there was no original sin, no reason for your Christ figure to die, and the entire premise fo Christianity sort of falls apart.

 

[Willamena]

If the Adam and Eve stroy is a parable/symboloic, that means there was no original sin, no reason for your Christ figure to die, and the entire premise fo Christianity sort of falls apart.

How do you figure that? Particularly if "sin" is symbolic, "Christ" is symbolic, and his reason for dying symbolic?

No part of the religious structure has to be lost for losing the literal interpretation. In fact, for me at least, in symbol form it gained meaningfulness where it had none before.

 

[AxisMundi]

How do you figure that? Particularly if "sin" is symbolic, "Christ" is symbolic, and his reason for dying symbolic?

No part of the religious structure has to be lost for losing the literal interpretation. In fact, for me at least, in symbol form it gained meaningfulness where it had none before.

Being symboloic would indicate that Christianity has no authority, nor cedibility.

Organized religion counts on believers seeing the entire scripture as infallable and true. Otherwise it looses credibility as a theopolitical superpower.

 

[waitasec]

How do you figure that? Particularly if "sin" is symbolic, "Christ" is symbolic, and his reason for dying symbolic?

No part of the religious structure has to be lost for losing the literal interpretation. In fact, for me at least, in symbol form it gained meaningfulness where it had none before.

so is this symbolic of how a person has the literal right to have dominion over another person?

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."


and is this symbolic that man is literally fundamentally evil?

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I cannot of course speak for all faiths, but as an ex-Christian, I know that God was understood to be a spiritual being. He was also purported to have interacted directly with the physical world through miracles and the sending of His son to earth. My questions to theists are:

• Is your God a spiritual being?
• Does He exist solely in the non-physical realm or does he directly affect the physical world as well?

It seems to me that if God only exists in the spiritual realm then there is nothing that can be learned about him. If he directly affects the physical world then we can derive information about him through both his actions and by his inactions.

Dear Beaudreaux,
What if I were to suggest that it's the physical world interacting in "god", and not actually the other way round?

 

[ChristineES]

True dat! However, I am asking what you believe. I am trying to understand what makes you say the story of Job was a parable but (perhaps) the story of the Jewish exodus out of Egypt or the story of Jesus healing a leper were not.

I believe that Jesus really existed and that He healed people.
About the Exodus, I don't know if it is historical or if it is a story, or if it was somewhat true and built up to legendary proportions like Robin Hood was. It happened so long ago. The earliest way to tell these stories was word of mouth. And if there were any earlier copies than the ones that have been found, they probably disintegrated a long time ago.
I watched a show on the science channel or PBS that talked about finding evidence of King David- not King David himself but that of Goliath. They've said evidence may be suggesting that King David really existed. Of course his kingdom was small- we always picture it to be so large. Since it was very small, history would have ignored it, for the most part.
And David was well after the Exodus.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Dear Beaudreaux,
What if I were to suggest that it's the physical world interacting in "god", and not actually the other way round?

I suppose I would ask if this interaction is one-way. That is, is there any way we can be empirically aware of this interaction?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I suppose I would ask if this interaction is one-way. That is, is there any way we can be empirically aware of this interaction?

Dear Beaudreaux,
My short answer to your question would be, that through what so far is acknowledged as empirical, man in general, is not aware of much.

I do not wish to speak off topic, yet ask for a moment to explain myself here, so as to not simply be labelled “awkward” J

It is my belief that we are evolutionarily taught to interpret existence as we do: i.e. through five, well-developed senses, we experience what is, as spatially and chronologically positioned, qualitative matter in 3D. This, we do because so far, it has enabled and benefited - or at least sufficed for - our survival.

We know that for every sensorial quality, there is a particular physical composition (e.g. a distinct scent, corresponds to a specific composition).
The fact that different kinds of sensorial qualities are experienced through different senses, tells us, that not all sorts of physical composition are detectable by all five empirical senses (e.g. one hears not compositions of flavour; one sees not compositions of scent, etc.)

To me then, the probability of there existing many other kinds of physical composition, undetectable by our most common five senses, seems larger than the likelihood of man having evolved to the degree of not being able to evolve any further.

Also; I know I have asked publicly before, but do we really not believe sound-waves to have existed prior to an eardrum?

My personal conclusion Beaudreaux, is that I am very much empirically aware of my “god”, who’s composition I detect by a sixth type of sense, which we have no terminology for, because - though neither new, nor even historically uncommon - evolutionarily speaking, it has not been to our advantage to invent one.
Eventually mind, I think this will change and, experiencing existence abstractly may become the next way forward - but that's definitely another thread!

Until next time,
Hermit

 

[Beaudreaux]

Dear Beaudreaux,
My short answer to your question would be, that through what so far is acknowledged as empirical, man in general, is not aware of much.

I do not wish to speak off topic, yet ask for a moment to explain myself here, so as to not simply be labelled “awkward” J

It is my belief that we are evolutionarily taught to interpret existence as we do: i.e. through five, well-developed senses, we experience what is, as spatially and chronologically positioned, qualitative matter in 3D. This, we do because so far, it has enabled and benefited - or at least sufficed for - our survival.

We know that for every sensorial quality, there is a particular physical composition (e.g. a distinct scent, corresponds to a specific composition).
The fact that different kinds of sensorial qualities are experienced through different senses, tells us, that not all sorts of physical composition are detectable by all five empirical senses (e.g. one hears not compositions of flavour; one sees not compositions of scent, etc.)

To me then, the probability of there existing many other kinds of physical composition, undetectable by our most common five senses, seems larger than the likelihood of man having evolved to the degree of not being able to evolve any further.

Also; I know I have asked publicly before, but do we really not believe sound-waves to have existed prior to an eardrum?

My personal conclusion Beaudreaux, is that I am very much empirically aware of my “god”, who’s composition I detect by a sixth type of sense, which we have no terminology for, because - though neither new, nor even historically uncommon - evolutionarily speaking, it has not been to our advantage to invent one.
Eventually mind, I think this will change and, experiencing existence abstractly may become the next way forward - but that's definitely another thread!

Until next time,
Hermit

Ah, the sixth sense. I suppose it is possible that some people have a sense that the rest of us don't and that sense allows them to perceive God. Much like the claim of God itself, I have no evidence for such a sense and some problems with the implications of the existence of such a sense.

First of all, if such a sense exists, it has almost no characteristics in common with what we now know a sense to be. Not all normal, healthy people have it. There seems to be no anatomical mechanism for it. It is often described to be sporadic and unreliable unlike our other, always-on senses.

Secondly, what does the existence of such a sense tell us about God? Remember, if God affects the physical world then we are well within our rights to try to derive characteristics of him from his behavior. Apparently, God only gives this sense to a select few, or maybe to a great many people, but it is clear he does not give it to everyone. From this we can derive that God does not want us all to perceive him.

We can also derive that God has no problem revealing himself to our senses since he reveals himself to this one. Why does he not make himself visible or audible? And again, why not to all?

 

[MoonWater]

Ah, the sixth sense. I suppose it is possible that some people have a sense that the rest of us don't and that sense allows them to perceive God. Much like the claim of God itself, I have no evidence for such a sense and some problems with the implications of the existence of such a sense.

First of all, if such a sense exists, it has almost no characteristics in common with what we now know a sense to be. Not all normal, healthy people have it. There seems to be no anatomical mechanism for it. It is often described to be sporadic and unreliable unlike our other, always-on senses.

Secondly, what does the existence of such a sense tell us about God? Remember, if God affects the physical world then we are well within our rights to try to derive characteristics of him from his behavior. Apparently, God only gives this sense to a select few, or maybe to a great many people, but it is clear he does not give it to everyone. From this we can derive that God does not want us all to perceive him.

We can also derive that God has no problem revealing himself to our senses since he reveals himself to this one. Why does he not make himself visible or audible? And again, why not to all?

Would you recognize "him" if "he" did?

For all we know "she" already has, and some/most/all just haven't recognized her as such. After all finding a physical explanation for something doesn't necessarily negate the possibility that god caused or influenced said thing in some way. Many may not deem it necessary to look any further once a physical explanation has been found and that's fine, but it doesn't negate the possibility as for all we know that physical explanation could be the "footprint" of god that science has been looking for. I'm not saying it is, nor am I saying science needs to even consider it that way. I'm just saying there's no definitive way for us to know.

 

[MoonWater]

In answer to the OP. I see god as a spiritual being who only interacts with the universe indirectly through influencing and guiding the living and that she will only do this with those who seek her out in some form or another. As such we only perceive god within ourselves or within other people or other living things. In a sense I see life itself as the "footprint" of god's existence.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dear Beaudreaux,
There are several misconceptions in above quotation, but as I feel no real need to convince others of what I say, and I detect no actual desire on your behalf to consider my claim possible, I shall only mention this one:

First of all, if such a sense exists, it has almost no characteristics in common with what we now know a sense to be. Not all normal, healthy people have it./.../It is often described to be sporadic and unreliable unlike our other, always-on senses.

Nowadays, traditional darwinism is no longer thought likely. Instead, evolution is said to occur through small, frequent and continuous mutations which, in correct environment, result in certain advantages. Insignificant and even unfavourable mutations occur all the time too, though such of course lead nowhere. This is considered true for all spiecies, including man.

This is not the place to get technical and, I do not wish to lecture but, look into the evolution of the human eye to get an idea of why I disagree with your understanding of evolution.

 

[T-OI]

In our belief structure, none of the gods (including Jehovah/Allah) can interact with the physical world. They are simply echos of ourselves created from the energies around us through the concetrated will of many people over a period of time.

One can stand at the end of a box canyon yelling "SLAP!" all they wish, that echo isn't going to pshycially slap them.

We believe Deities interact with their worshippers on a subtle, and quite personal, basis. Dreams, intuition, etc.

We also beleive that no god can effect the worshippers of other gods, or of none, either. There is no conduit, no connection from active worship/love/devotion, and no way to reach the individual who is not part of their religion(s).

To Jehovah, trying to persuade nd Atheist or non-Abrahamic would be akin to yelling out of the canyon at someone who is wearing really, really good earplugs.

Hahaha! agreed on that! XD

 

[Beaudreaux]

Dear Beaudreaux,
There are several misconceptions in above quotation, but as I feel no real need to convince others of what I say, and I detect no actual desire on your behalf to consider my claim possible, I shall only mention this one:



Nowadays, traditional darwinism is no longer thought likely. Instead, evolution is said to occur through small, frequent and continuous mutations which, in correct environment, result in certain advantages. Insignificant and even unfavourable mutations occur all the time too, though such of course lead nowhere. This is considered true for all spiecies, including man.

This is not the place to get technical and, I do not wish to lecture but, look into the evolution of the human eye to get an idea of why I disagree with your understanding of evolution.

I'm sorry. Where in my refutation of your sixth sense did I mention anything about evolution? Are you sure you're responding to the right post?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'm sorry. Where in my refutation of your sixth sense did I mention anything about evolution? Are you sure you're responding to the right post?

[crickets]...