• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Can Theology Really Study the "Nature of God?" An AI answer.

F1fan

Veteran Member
There is enough evidence around us to draw accurate conclusions about the unseen.
How could we know?
Who or what created the universe? Atheism can only regress so far, but never to the origins.
Why assume it was created?
Why does man appear to behave in a manner unlike all other creatures on the planet - his pride and arrogance will override his sensibilities.
Most all animals have unique behaviors. Why assign humans some special status, unless you feel insecure and want to feel superior, in which case you aren't.
Why is only man capable of loving others as himself? In the animal kingdom it's the survival of the fittest - eg: none of them eulogize their deceased.
Neanderthals had rituals for their dead, so humans aren't the only species. But these issues are a matter of abstract thinking, so what makes that special? Christianity's say so? The same religion that executed some 30,000 people in the 17th century for witchcraft until citizens put a stop to being murdered by their pastors?
There are phenomenon on this planet that indicate that a non secular entity exists in the transcendent realms.
Nothing that convinces critical thinkers.
Theology is not entire speculation or conjecture, but based on axiomatic evidence that science and secularism cannot explain.
Theology is highly subjective and questionable.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
That the nature of Divinity can't be expressed in words but the closest I can think of is with paradoxes: God is manifest and unmanifest, everything and nothing, everywhere and beyond everywhere. And also with the concept of Non-dual, advaita. But even better is this Hafiz poem rendered by Dan Ladinsky

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:

How are you?
I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
What is God?
If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,
If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening Called the mouth,
O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly Laughing ‘Now!
A very nice poem, Bulle Shah* also wrote beautifully about it. But not really true. In Advaita, there should be no God, because God and people will make a duality, and we know that we are in no way divine. What is manifest and unmanifest, everything and possibly nothing too (Ex-nihilo), here and everywhere, is Brahman, i.e., the substrate of the universe or 'physical energy'. We do not yet know everything about it but can tell what we know about it through a tiny opening called mouth or write/type it. All problems arise because we make 'what exists' into a God.

* "Bulla, ki jaana main kaun" Bulle Shah (Syed Abdullah Shah Qadri, 1680-1755) says "who knows who am I?"
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
In Advaita, there should be no God, because God and people will make a duality,

Language is inherently dual so you are right. But also to say "non dual" is an expression of the "dual vs non-dual" dichotomy and thus we wind up in the same boat.

The word "God" is specially prone to people having different images. Some see a stern long-bearded father figure in the sky with manna in one hand and a lightning bolt in the other judging whether someone is good, deserving of manna, or bad, earning the lightening. Some would see a mother figure loving the creation of her "womb" and sorrowing at the misdeeds of her billions of children. And there are many other possibilities.

My teacher would sometimes say "that" and point upwards. And I quite like: “Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God? He is the breath inside the breath.

we know that we are in no way divine

That knowing is from my perspective the action of maya or the Mother of ignorance.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Language is inherently dual so you are right. But also to say "non dual" is an expression of the "dual vs non-dual" dichotomy and thus we wind up in the same boat.

The word "God" is specially prone to people having different images. Some see a stern long-bearded father figure in the sky with manna in one hand and a lightning bolt in the other judging whether someone is good, deserving of manna, or bad, earning the lightening. Some would see a mother figure loving the creation of her "womb" and sorrowing at the misdeeds of her billions of children. And there are many other possibilities.

My teacher would sometimes say "that" and point upwards. And I quite like: “Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God? He is the breath inside the breath.

That knowing is from my perspective the action of maya or the Mother of ignorance.
I respect your views, though they may be a bit different from mine. :)
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
I recently asked ChatGPT this question: "How can theology study the nature of God? Is it not constrained to only studying what humans think about God?" Here is it's response:



At the end of the day, I don't think it answered my question -- even seeming (and this would be surprising!) to ignore the last part. For example, the last 5 words "profound questions about the divine" seems to assume that "the divine" actually exists, in a way that isn't in question. So, I asked a followup question: "But doesn't theology assume first that both God and the divine are realities?" Here is the response:


I'd be interested in members' thoughts.

(My own thought, for better or worse, is that theology is actually the study of what humans think about divinity, and not very much more. The study of what might have been wrought by divinity, in my view, winds up in the sciences -- the study of what is, not necessarily why it is.)
If you look at the Evolution and Creation, what they both have in common is both start from a simple beginning; first replicators for evolution, and God/ Adam and Eve, coming first for creation. In both cases, from these two simple beginnings, things divide and diversify, like a sapling becoming a large complex tree, with many levels of branches and leaves. Evolution evolved into new species, while Creation evolves cultures and civilizations.

The replicators, like God/Adam and Eve, are the fundamental principles of the sapling, that is still active in the diversity that we now see. It exists where the tree meets the ground, to separate what is above; branches, from what is below; roots. At one time is was a single trunk, one leaf, and a single root but same air/ground interface.

Evolution is what is above the ground; what we can see. While Creation is what is not seen, below the ground. The unconscious mind is below the ground. One need faith to explore it, since it goes outside the philosophy of science; psychology is considered soft science. Yet it anchors the tree and feeds the tree water and fertilizers. Religious books are often old because they were written when the large tree of today was smaller, and easier to understand in relationship to its humble beginning. It sets an early foundation into which all the rest, to today, was built.

We as humans are more that just our bodies, we are also consciousness. Evolution is about what is above the ground which is our DNA bodies. Religion is a more about what is hidden; operating system for consciousness with symbolic Adam the first modern human consciousness; system 1.0.

AI is stumped by questions of theology, because it does not have the data about consciousness that religions seems to understand; root platform common to all humans; symbolic Adam. Evolution is hardware based, which is easy to see, while religion is more like unconscious software based.

Software is less tangible and deals in coding, that moves the hardware. Coding is not limited to just what can occur in the material world; computer games. We can code divine games. Consciousness is beyond the body in the sense will and choice allows us to depart from the coded instincts of the inner sapling, losing our root center. But this root coding is still there and began in a simple way. Symbolism is the language of the unconscious; coding language, and this is common to nearly all religions. AI will need to learn more of that to answer that question.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I recently asked ChatGPT this question: "How can theology study the nature of God? Is it not constrained to only studying what humans think about God?" Here is it's response:



At the end of the day, I don't think it answered my question -- even seeming (and this would be surprising!) to ignore the last part. For example, the last 5 words "profound questions about the divine" seems to assume that "the divine" actually exists, in a way that isn't in question. So, I asked a followup question: "But doesn't theology assume first that both God and the divine are realities?" Here is the response:


I'd be interested in members' thoughts.

(My own thought, for better or worse, is that theology is actually the study of what humans think about divinity, and not very much more. The study of what might have been wrought by divinity, in my view, winds up in the sciences -- the study of what is, not necessarily why it is.)
I think its answers were really well put. I completely understood the many points it raises. Even from a secular perspective, not starting with the assumption of a deity, the effect of what that belief is has direct impact upon human experience.

Human experience is deeply informed by history of religious experience and cultural symbols of the Divine, regardless of how much one wishes to separate it out of the world and see it as a "science only" reality. So theology deals with more than just "ideas about God". Even atheism is a theological view.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
These theological concepts have originated by observations about the world around.
I don't see that. What possible observation of the world around us would a theology of say, "Christ in you", come from? That has a lot more to do with an interior, subjective sense of self and connection with the world.

That's more about the insides than the outsides. It's more about the internal world, and less about the external world. And honestly, that is really the core of any religion. It's about the mystical sense or realization of the self in transcendence.

It's not just sloppy pre-science guessing badly at how stuff works and using God as a substitute for scientific theories. I see that as a very naive view of what religion is. And that is where theology at its best tries to look more deeply than just sloppy ideas like that.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't see that. What possible observation of the world around us would a theology of say, "Christ in you", come from? That has a lot more to do with an interior, subjective sense of self and connection with the world.

That's more about the insides than the outsides. It's more about the internal world, and less about the external world. And honestly, that is really the core of any religion. It's about the mystical sense or realization of the self in transcendence.

It's not just sloppy pre-science guessing badly at how stuff works and using God as a substitute for scientific theories. I see that as a very naive view of what religion is. And that is where theology at its best tries to look more deeply than just sloppy ideas like that.
The internal self isn’t separate from the outer world, but it’s a good point of focus, yes
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The internal self isn’t separate from the outer world, but it’s a good point of focus, yes
Ultimately speaking, yes, the inside and the outside are interconnected. But too often we only look outside ourselves for answers, and never look within. It is as you say a matter of focus.

But doing science is frankly all about the exteriors. Doing religion, should be about the interiors. Mystical realizations break down the divide of dualism into nonduality. But that's beyond science, and religion at that point.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why does man appear to behave in a manner unlike all other creatures on the planet - his pride and arrogance will override his sensibilities.
You don't think these exist in other species? There's a great special on NetFlix right now called Chimp Empire. In it you see the same complex social and political wranglings, ego-puffing, arrogance and pride and game playing as you do in humans. Humans are just a different level of expression of what came before it in nature.
Why is only man capable of loving others as himself?
How many humans do you know who actually do this? And besides, why do you believe other animals don't, when there are very clear examples of them doing that?
In the animal kingdom it's the survival of the fittest - eg: none of them eulogize their deceased.
That is flatly wrong. Elephants mourn their dead and make pilgrimages to their graves.

"Elephants do grieve, and they are one of the few animals who are similar to humans in mourning patterns. Believe it or not, elephants cry. They bury their dead and pay tribute to the bodies and to the bones"​
Monkeys mourn their dead. Dolphins mourn their dead. Giraffes do. And Dogs do as well. You can start here in your discovery about the world you thought you knew, but didn't. The Five Animals That Grieve.
There are phenomenon on this planet that indicate that a non secular entity exists in the transcendent realms.
Can you give me an example of what you have in mind?
Theology is not entire speculation or conjecture, but based on axiomatic evidence that science and secularism cannot explain.
I would disagree with this point of view about theology.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Man's spirit longs for justice, love, peace and joy - these are not attributes that were derived from material composition - they must've had a spiritual source to endow them with such traits.
Obviously!
Other animals have a sense of fairness, and a desire for peace and joy as well. I don't dispute they have a spiritual source, but do you deny other animals that same source, or believe only humans have these qualities, and all the other species are just soulless craving beasts that do not feel anything in life other than a desire to kill, eat, and have sex?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
How many humans do you know who actually do this? And besides, why do you believe other animals don't, when there are very clear examples of them doing that?
A good example is the vampire bat, which could easily die if it fails to get its nightly feeding of blood. But very often, when that happens, another bat will regurgitate and share with the one who missed his chance -- both will survive, but be a little hungrier next night. (What makes this even more interesting is that appears that when a well-fed bat refuses to share, others around it notice, and are less likely to share with it next time it fails in the hunt.)
 

DNB

Christian
Other animals have a sense of fairness, and a desire for peace and joy as well. I don't dispute they have a spiritual source, but do you deny other animals that same source, or believe only humans have these qualities, and all the other species are just soulless craving beasts that do not feel anything in life other than a desire to kill, eat, and have sex?
Animals act and react solely on instinct, there is no love, meditation, sense of morality or spiritual inclinations in any of them.
They all kill indiscriminately, they eat other animals alive, they do not protest injustices, nor establish a moral code.
They cannot treat other species as themselves while they're feeding on the other's children, obviously.
They are only loyal to those who feed and protect them, and they prostitute themselves to the most generous donor.
They eat, sleep, defecate, and procreate - you will never catch one contemplating God or their existence, that's utterly absurd - there's nothing within their behaviour to substantiate that. All the analysis that say otherwise, are misinterpreted.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Other animals have a sense of fairness, and a desire for peace and joy as well. I don't dispute they have a spiritual source, but do you deny other animals that same source, or believe only humans have these qualities, and all the other species are just soulless craving beasts that do not feel anything in life other than a desire to kill, eat, and have sex?
The source is empathy and their social needs. There are a lot of videos on internet of elephants shooing of leopards to save a fawn or chimpanzees trying to free a leopard from a snare, dogs feeding tiger cubs. You acknowledge all that, but then give the credit to a fictitious entity, spirit, and not brain. Empathy is when we imagine ourselves in place of a victim.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You acknowledge all that, but then give the credit to a fictitious entity, spirit, and not brain.
Your idea of what spirituality is, what its source is etc, is what is fictitious. You mistake fingers pointing to the moon with the moon itself.
Empathy is when we imagine ourselves in place of a victim.
And you don't consider doing that to have some deeper source, a pull towards unity to be in its essence transcending the world of me, it's mine, give it to me mentalities? You don't see empathy itself as anything higher than the 'selfish gene'? You aren't aware that that is considered a deeper, more spiritual condition beyond just me and mine?

I believe your problem exists in mistaking the symbols of our our transformation, as nothing but unscientific fictions because they can't be found walking around in the forest like a type of creature, rather than looking at the miracle of a deeper and higher plane of Life available to us that they point to. What on earth do you imagine spirituality to be? Stories about ghosts under the bed?
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Animals act and react solely on instinct, there is no love, meditation, sense of morality or spiritual inclinations in any of them.
You just described the vast majority of humans. Most humans are quite self-unaware and act out of nothing but their impulses without genuine love, and absolute lack of meditation, minimal morality, or outright zero spiritual inclinations. You've read your Bible haven't you? "Many are called but few are chosen"? Yet you assume all humans are Enlightened children of the Divine? :)

But regarding animals, again, this is not true of higher order species at all. You find generosity in them as well as greed and selfishness, the same as us. You certainly do see love. Do you think your dog doesn't feel a connecting bond with you, but rather is just some ravenous feeding beast that could care less if you were there or not, so long as it had food? I mean that alone should make you question your views.
They all kill indiscriminately, they eat other animals alive, they do not protest injustices, nor establish a moral code.
Again, you just described the human species. Look at our industrial meat production facilities where animals are slaughtered every day as if there are nothing at all in order to satisfy our desires for meat products from McDonalds and giant slabs of meat as the main feature of our dinners, when we could eat less meat with every meal and more vegetables instead.

Look at us humans who not not protest social injustices and turn a blind eye to the suffering of others. Look at those who disregard the rights and feelings of others as they ram their system of beliefs down other people's throats. And so forth. You just described humans.

And besides, no actually. Animals do not kill indiscriminately. Nor do they eat animals alive. They kill them first. It's hard to eat something that is kicking you in the face! :) Plus, they kill only what they need to survive. It's humans who indiscriminately kill in acts of war, bombing cities and killing non-combatants, for instance.
They cannot treat other species as themselves while they're feeding on the other's children, obviously.
And humans don't slaughter pigs, and chickens, and cows, and deer, and fish, and......?

What is this image of humans you have that sees them as not the same as the animals you are describing? Everything you put them down for, is precisely the same thing we do. Yet, you probably don't consider humans to be animals themselves, do you?
They are only loyal to those who feed and protect them, and they prostitute themselves to the most generous donor.
Again, you are describing humans to a T.
They eat, sleep, defecate, and procreate - you will never catch one contemplating God or their existence, that's utterly absurd - there's nothing within their behaviour to substantiate that. All the analysis that say otherwise, are misinterpreted.
Again, most humans fit this description as well. But, how do you actually know whether or a not a dolphin, or an elephant, or a whale, or a rabbit even, doesn't feel a connection with God? How do you know that?

I would argue actually they probably have more connection that most humans, because they don't have as many complex distractions and ideas about things cluttering their heads like humans do. It may be simplistic, and unformed, but then again, 'Except you become as a little child, you cannot see God'. Maybe they aren't the ones who are so lost as we are?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
And besides, no actually. Animals do not kill indiscriminately. Nor do they eat animals alive. They kill them first. It's hard to eat something that is kicking you in the face! :) Plus, they kill only what they need to survive.
While I agree with the gist of your post, this is simply false. Foxes in a henhouse get into a killing frenzy, cats kill for sport and ichneumon wasps lay eggs into living caterpillar and the larvae eat the caterpillar alive from the inside.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
While I agree with the gist of your post, this is simply false. Foxes in a henhouse get into a killing frenzy, cats kill for sport and ichneumon wasps lay eggs into living caterpillar and the larvae eat the caterpillar alive from the inside.
Alright, I may have oversimplified things. Yes, animals may kill for sport, which is probably more a matter of honing their hunting skills, keeping themselves sharp. Some may even kill for amusement, like an orca throwing a seal up in the air over and over without killing it, the way some teenage kid may get a thrill from torturing cats, or something.

All of these things humans themselves do in ample measure. But I wouldn't call that just indiscriminate killing per se. There is some purpose behind it. Indiscriminate killing is more like the psychopath who goes on a killing spree in some random movie theater with an NRA sanctioned weapon. But such behaviors are signs of a mental problem.

As far as I know, most animals don't just go on indiscriminate killing sprees for no real purpose, just killing for the sake of killing. If that did define the animal kingdom as a whole, I can't imagine how any species could survive more than a couple generations with that much purposeless, wanton carnage going on as the default behavior of all animal lifeforms.
 
Last edited:
Top