Questions for God

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This isn't an evolution really of the concept of God though. The Classical View of God is not the original view of God. It was one view that evolved over time, while it didn't really get to it's present form until relatively recently. The view that I spoke about, that we see in process theology, for example, really harkens back to a Jewish view of God that we see in Job.

First you say that there isn't an evolution of the concept of God and then go on to describe it.

I think a view that is in line with Liberation Theology makes God much more relevant, and it places more responsibility on humans. If one then takes the panentheistic view, which is often promoted in both process and liberation theology, then the relevancy of God becomes all the more important.

Gods are not relevant in my life.

The concept of a god might be meaningful to some others, but whatever value they get from that doesn't depend on that god existing or doing anything. It's the idea of a god that is relevant to them, not the god itself, which even if it exists, does nothing as far as we can tell.

Anyway, since you won't actually directly address or attempt to rebut my claims and arguments but instead prefer to give me opinions that are irrelevant to me and make claims that you don't support such as the one about gods being relevant because of a particular theology that is unfamiliar to me and which you don't try to explain how that makes gods relevant, and since specific theologies are irrelevant to me, there's nothing here for me.

This is where this discussion began, when you responded to these words:

Me: "The problem for the Abrahamist is that he or she has chosen to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god, but lives in a world that should be different if that were the case. For much of that, there are the myths that explain why man is mortal and lives a difficult life rather than in a paradise, or why there are so many mutually unintelligible languages. Those put the blame on man for eating a forbidden apple or building a tall tower."

You never addressed any of that, but instead, introduced process theology, liberation theology, and Job.

Thank you for being polite and friendly, but this will be my last post in this discussion. Like I said, there's nothing here for me. You'd have needed to show some interest in what interested me enough to post it.

This is a principal reason so many relationships fall apart - failure to ask oneself what's in this relationship for the other person. Men who aren't considerate of their wives and instead of showing love and gratitude think only of themselves will find that as soon as she thinks she can do better with somebody else or alone leave them. Whether you want to keep people in your life or in a conversation, it helps to stop to think about what they want or need.

 

[Ostronomos]

First you say that there isn't an evolution of the concept of God and then go on to describe it.

Gods are not relevant in my life.

The concept of a god might be meaningful to some others, but whatever value they get from that doesn't depend on that god existing or doing anything. It's the idea of a god that is relevant to them, not the god itself, which even if it exists, does nothing as far as we can tell.

But ideas are the very source of everything. They have the power to shape our reality.

It is through observation that reality is created (feedback between mind and reality, or processor and display respectively).

To argue that God is irrelevant because "He does nothing to interfere with our day to day lives" is to assign an anthropomorphic belief or personal egotistical belief that God (or consciousness) has our qualities, or image. This is a fatal error.

Contrary to this approach, it should be the goal of science and technology to unveil the truth about God. How He works. What is true of Him and what is not. How He functions.

Your Consciousness Can Connect With the Whole Universe, Groundbreaking New Research Suggests

This clue about where consciousness comes from supports a Nobel-Prize winner’s theory about how quantum physics works in your brain, known as Orch OR Theory.

www.aol.com

Anyway, since you won't actually directly address or attempt to rebut my claims and arguments but instead prefer to give me opinions that are irrelevant to me and make claims that you don't support such as the one about gods being relevant because of a particular theology that is unfamiliar to me and which you don't try to explain how that makes gods relevant, and since specific theologies are irrelevant to me, there's nothing here for me.

This is where this discussion began, when you responded to these words:

Me: "The problem for the Abrahamist is that he or she has chosen to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god, but lives in a world that should be different if that were the case. For much of that, there are the myths that explain why man is mortal and lives a difficult life rather than in a paradise, or why there are so many mutually unintelligible languages. Those put the blame on man for eating a forbidden apple or building a tall tower."

You never addressed any of that, but instead, introduced process theology, liberation theology, and Job.

Thank you for being polite and friendly, but this will be my last post in this discussion. Like I said, there's nothing here for me. You'd have needed to show some interest in what interested me enough to post it.

This is a principal reason so many relationships fall apart - failure to ask oneself what's in this relationship for the other person. Men who aren't considerate of their wives and instead of showing love and gratitude think only of themselves will find that as soon as she thinks she can do better with somebody else or alone leave them. Whether you want to keep people in your life or in a conversation, it helps to stop to think about what they want or need.

 

[Trailblazer]

To argue that God is irrelevant because "He does nothing to interfere with our day to day lives" is to assign an anthropomorphic belief or personal egotistical belief that God (or consciousness) has our qualities, or image. This is a fatal error.

I fully agree.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

ideas are the very source of everything. They have the power to shape our reality.

OK, but the idea of a god doesn't shape my reality.

To argue that God is irrelevant because "He does nothing to interfere with our day to day lives" is to assign an anthropomorphic belief or personal egotistical belief that God (or consciousness) has our qualities, or image.

I have assigned no qualities to any god, although I may refer to the qualities that believers assign to their gods.

Nor do I see where ego enters into this, although some theists call atheism egotistical because they view it as the atheist seeing himself as replacing a god or describe atheism as rebellion or the pursuit of licentious hedonism.

Nor have I equated gods with consciousness, although I believe you have as well as with holograms or simulations, but I might be confusing you with somebody else. To me, gods are an invention of the imagination until I have reason to think otherwise. If they don't exist, they are not conscious. Nor is consciousness an indicator that gods exist.

Doing nothing that affects one is the very definition of irrelevant: "not connected with or relevant to something." That which doesn't affect my life is irrelevant to me. That doesn't mean that I don't have opinions about such things or have hopes for others who are affected by whatever it is that affects them but not me - just that by not impacting my life, they lack relevance to it. I hope for peace in the Middle East and Ukraine and feel empathy, but those troubles don't impact on our lives except for causing those feelings.

Regarding the relevance of gods, I have no knowledge of any god existing much less impacting my life, so even if one exists and even if that god is doing something that is important for me, knowing about it changes nothing, and thus the information would be useless even if I had it.

I expatriated from the Staes 15 years ago, and have no connection to it or any of its residents apart from still having an American passport and an obligation to file taxes every year. I also receive a Social Security check and have a State Department credit union savings account for Americans living abroad. That makes American division and strife, American theocracy, and American gun violence, for example, no longer relevant to my life, but American interest rates do affect my savings albeit not my life.

We've just begun earning interest on that account since the Fed increased its prime borrowing rates, but we didn't live on that interest before when it was about a half a percent, so getting a raise so to speak was also irrelevant. Life didn't change one iota except this year, we actually had a tax bill, which was also irrelevant. We've only ever paid American taxes when filing out returns in the past following some kind of property sale or inheritance and sending them in with a check once in a while affects nothing for us. It just means we acquired more that year, which is also irrelevant. We'll die with that money in a bank. I hope whoever ends up with it is helped by it, but we weren't.

This is a fatal error.

I don't see an error there, but even if there were an error, I don't see it being harmful at all much less fatal.

 

[amatuerscholar]

First you say that there isn't an evolution of the concept of God and then go on to describe it.

Gods are not relevant in my life.

The concept of a god might be meaningful to some others, but whatever value they get from that doesn't depend on that god existing or doing anything. It's the idea of a god that is relevant to them, not the god itself, which even if it exists, does nothing as far as we can tell.

Anyway, since you won't actually directly address or attempt to rebut my claims and arguments but instead prefer to give me opinions that are irrelevant to me and make claims that you don't support such as the one about gods being relevant because of a particular theology that is unfamiliar to me and which you don't try to explain how that makes gods relevant, and since specific theologies are irrelevant to me, there's nothing here for me.

This is where this discussion began, when you responded to these words:

Me: "The problem for the Abrahamist is that he or she has chosen to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god, but lives in a world that should be different if that were the case. For much of that, there are the myths that explain why man is mortal and lives a difficult life rather than in a paradise, or why there are so many mutually unintelligible languages. Those put the blame on man for eating a forbidden apple or building a tall tower."

You never addressed any of that, but instead, introduced process theology, liberation theology, and Job.

Thank you for being polite and friendly, but this will be my last post in this discussion. Like I said, there's nothing here for me. You'd have needed to show some interest in what interested me enough to post it.

This is a principal reason so many relationships fall apart - failure to ask oneself what's in this relationship for the other person. Men who aren't considerate of their wives and instead of showing love and gratitude think only of themselves will find that as soon as she thinks she can do better with somebody else or alone leave them. Whether you want to keep people in your life or in a conversation, it helps to stop to think about what they want or need.

I said that my view of God, the idea of process theology or the like, isn't an evolution of the Classical View, which you seemed to imply. I pointed out that the view that I'm working with is actually older than the Classical View.

And that's fine if the concept of God is not meaningful to you or isn't relevant to you. Doesn't mean it isn't relevant for others. And to claim that whatever value one may get isn't dependent on that god existing is a statement without evidence.

I did address your point. I stated that your premise was wrong. The Abrahamist in general has not chosen to take on a Classical View of God. Some may have, but it's a view that is dying away. The foundation of what you said was incorrect, and I pointed out alternatives to that view, including a more historic view that predates the Classical View.

If that foundation is faulty, then it reasons that what is built on top of it will also be faulty. For instance, many don't put any blame on the apple or tower, because they understand the first 12 chapters of Genesis are not meant to be taken literally. That they are mythical and are part of a national epic. Not to mention that the tower in the story of Babel is almost never mentioned, and holds no significance.

 

[Muffled]

I never said that Baha'u'llah was the Spirit of God. Jesus was the Spirit of God.

believe Jesus had the Spirit of God but He was a person.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

But ideas are the very source of everything. They have the power to shape our reality.

It is through observation that reality is created (feedback between mind and reality, or processor and display respectively).

Is that true of the multi-verse concept though, or not? If you respond, please don't lay too much complicated math on me.. I'm not that interested in it to be honest, nor could I understand it. But ideas around the importance of 'our observation' are of some interest

I mean, I am interested in some of the complicated theory stuff, but it might be not be worth my time to understand it, given my strengths/weaknesses.

To argue that God is irrelevant because "He does nothing to interfere with our day to day lives" is to assign an anthropomorphic belief or personal egotistical belief that God (or consciousness) has our qualities, or image. This is a fatal error.

In a way, I don't see the connection between what the higher force might possibly do, or might not do, as really illuminating major qualities it has.
We humans are also perfectly capable of individualizing away from collectives, or groups

Contrary to this approach, it should be the goal of science and technology to unveil the truth about God. How He works. What is true of Him and what is not. How He functions.

Yeah it can try to do that, but it seems like there should also be a more non-complicated, sort of holistic way to get into contact with that, if that makes any sense. I mean, for 100-200 thousand years, man was probably more intrigued by simpler mysteries, which inspired a belief in a higher power. In the modern age, we are somehow dulled to that. But back then, when they saw a night sky full of stars, and comets, and the northern lights, well maybe that was enough. I don't know, it just seems like we sort of lack basic awe?

 

[ChatwithGod]

3. How does God know [he]'s not just a dream in the brain of a human?

God's existence and awareness are beyond human understanding and aren't confined to our physical reality. In Jeremiah 23:24, God says, "Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?" declares the Lord. "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" This shows God's omnipresence, existing everywhere, beyond just our minds.

 

[ChatwithGod]

2. How does God know [he] didn't spontaneously spring into existence. fully formed with memories and all, with the rest of the universe last Thursday?

God's nature as eternal and unchanging is central to Christian understanding. In Revelation 1:8, God says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," meaning He is the beginning and the end, existing before all things.

 

[ChatwithGod]

1. How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

God's omniscience means He knows everything, even what we don't know we don't know. In Psalm 147:5, it says, "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit."

 

[Trailblazer]

3. How does God know [he]'s not just a dream in the brain of a human?

God's existence and awareness are beyond human understanding and aren't confined to our physical reality. In Jeremiah 23:24, God says, "Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?" declares the Lord. "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" This shows God's omnipresence, existing everywhere, beyond just our minds.

That is what I also believe about God. God's existence and awareness are beyond human understanding.

“How wondrous is the unity of the Living, the Ever-Abiding God—a unity which is exalted above all limitations, that transcendeth the comprehension of all created things! He hath, from everlasting, dwelt in His inaccessible habitation of holiness and glory, and will unto everlasting continue to be enthroned upon the heights of His independent sovereignty and grandeur. How lofty hath been His incorruptible Essence, how completely independent of the knowledge of all created things, and how immensely exalted will it remain above the praise of all the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth!”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 261-264