NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes,I'm sorry,I'm doing another one of these things.Sue me if you want.You'll have to find out where the hell I am first.:rolleyes:

Anyways,the last topic I started seemed to have gotten off track but it did seem to bring up another question:Is God a conscious being with emotions and a feeling for time,ethics,etc.?Or is it simply a force?

I mean,does God watch over the universe in another plane or does he reside somewhere in this universe?Or is he just a force,like gravity,that follows patterns or laws?And if he does have emotions,motives and morals,is that why he is concerned with us?And if he does not,why does he bother with us?

Discuss.

What God? There is no such thing. :rolleyes:

First you have to determine if God is.

*checks book*

Yes.

(assuming, for a moment, I'm not atheisic)

What God? There is no such thing. :rolleyes:

Oh yes,please no anti-thiesm or anti-athiesm,please.

First you have to determine if God is.

We're assuming God is.Yes,of course,God doesn't exist,it's all fake,thank you all athiests rushing to tell me that.:D

Yes,I'm sorry,I'm doing another one of these things.Sue me if you want.You'll have to find out where the hell I am first.:rolleyes:

Anyways,the last topic I started seemed to have gotten off track but it did seem to bring up another question:Is God a conscious being with emotions and a feeling for time,ethics,etc.?Or is it simply a force?

I mean,does God watch over the universe in another plane or does he reside somewhere in this universe?Or is he just a force,like gravity,that follows patterns or laws?And if he does have emotions,motives and morals,is that why he is concerned with us?And if he does not,why does he bother with us?

Discuss.

Assuming God exists, he/she/it can also be an emergent property of all tge people who believe in it. Neither a force, nor a person per se. God may some of the properties of individual believers and other emergent traits that closely parallel the properties of other large-scale social systems like nations.

Oh yes,please no anti-thiesm or anti-athiesm,please.
I'm sorry. Yes, God is a conscious being. He doesn't really care much about us living humans though. He is too busy lounging about in heaven while angels sing his praises accompanied by dead souls strumming their harps.

Oh yes,please no anti-thiesm or anti-athiesm,please.

Well, that wouldn't be hard, what with there being no thiesm or athiesm...(a)theism maybe...

I'm sorry. Yes, God is a conscious being. He doesn't really care much about us living humans though. He is too busy lounging about in heaven while angels sing his praises accompanied by dead souls strumming their harps.

They are into electronic music now. Ohh Heaven!

We're assuming God is.Yes,of course,God doesn't exist,it's all fake,thank you all athiests rushing to tell me that.:D

I'm not atheist, I'm agnostic. I'm not so silly as to say God isn't, I just don't know if he/she is.

They are into electronic music now. Ohh Heaven!
Nah! All the cool music is in hell. That's where I want to go...

*Sacrifices a chicken to Satan*

If God weren't conscious, He wouldn't be a deity at all; we could just say "the universe" and be talking about the same thing.

Well, that wouldn't be hard, what with there being no thiesm or athiesm...(a)theism maybe...

Ok,my mistake. I switched the e and i.

In regards to both questions

Assuming the universe is infinite
Assuming that you have a definition for what God is
Assuming everything outside the visible universe cannot be known, and is not bound by the laws of this universe

You could safely say, that something out there fits the definitions of whatever god you are trying to play out, which is true by default, and since that god will not be suspect of the laws of physics or logic, problems with other gods, or logical paradoxes regarding concepts like omnipotence and physical problems regarding things like omniscience, all become irrelevant.

Therefore, you could say that, for everything in existence (not necessarily in the known universe) there is at least one thing that is a concious god, if the assumption that the universe is infinite holds true.

Conciousness itself can be a tricky issue though, there are quite possibly concious beings with thought processes much slower, faster, or different from ours. Is a culture a concious being? What about a planet?

I would say no. God is thought to be infinitely compassionate. Compassion involves taking action for others with no thoughts of self.

No thoughts of self = no consiousness.

Under my personal philosophy, "God" is a natural (eventually one could use scientific methods to detect) force in the universe that causes what goes around to come around. That or just the nature of the universe is to send things around and there is no "force" doing it. Either one amounts to the same thing: no supernatural being nor any being w/ any qualities more similar to humans than to strong nuclear force.

When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it — this is knowledge.

don't know
no one will know untill they die
I'll tell you in 70 years or so (I hope)

I think we cannot know if God is conscious or not.

I detect a pattern...

Question about god.

First the atheists show up to say there is no god.

Then the pedantrists show up to say that "athiest" is spelled wrong.

Then the semanticists show up to say that atheist doesn't *mean* that.

Then the logicians show up to say that god makes no sense.

Then the rationalists show up to say that god makes sense.

Then the agnostics show up to say either that they do not know or that no one can know.

And theists just avoid the arguments, until represented by the fundamentalist evangelists, at which point they come in to say that those people don't represent us all.

I detect a pattern...

Question about god.

First the atheists show up to say there is no god.

Then the pedantrists show up to say that "athiest" is spelled wrong.

Then the semanticists show up to say that atheist doesn't *mean* that.

Then the logicians show up to say that god makes no sense.

Then the rationalists show up to say that god makes sense.

Then the agnostics show up to say either that they do not know or that no one can know.

And theists just avoid the arguments, until represented by the fundamentalist evangelists, at which point they come in to say that those people don't represent us all.
Then the spammers seize control.

snip

yeah that's about the standard religious debate here

I'm just going to flat out respond to the question. In my opinion, Heaven is on a different plane than the universe and that's where God is. But He is also everywhere. He's omnipresent. I think He cares about us because otherwise He wouldn't've put all the time and effort He did into creating us. And He especially loves human beings because according to the Bible we are the only part of Creation that He didn't just speak into existence. He made Adam with His own hands and breathed His(God's) own breath into him. So He is mindful of mankind because He made us...we don't deserve all the attention we get from Him but He cares about us anyways. Another evidence of His love for us is Jesus. But He does have all kinds of emotions anger(ex.the flood) love(ex. Jesus) happiness(ex. "there is more rejoicing in Heaven over even one soul that is saved than for 99 who don't need to be") sadness(ex. God was beginning to regret ever making man before the flood but love again...he saved noah). Okay remember that's all in my opinion. Feel free to criticize. I'm sure you will because my opinion's based on the fact that the Bible is true.

snip
well I would (critisize) but it's damn hard to do that when someone isn't yelling at you or telling you why they're right.

God does exist. The question is what form this being takes.

Is God simply the conception generated by the mass-delusion of a bunch of half-scared, half-naively idealistic yokels?

OR is God an extra-terrestrial being not native to this universe and the creator of all that we know as the universe?

OR is God a super soul/spirit which lives somewhere in the greater universe on a plane "higher" than our own?

OR, finally, is God a perfect being, an example of supreme reality; the progenitor or all reality, and by definition transcends all reality (is superior to)?



In the former scenario God is not conscious.

In the second and third scenarios God is almost certainly conscious.

In the last scenario God cannot be conscious since to be conscious is mutually contradictive with possessing the quality of perfection.



NT

(snip)
In the last scenario God cannot be conscious since to be conscious is mutually contradictive with possessing the quality of perfection.

How is it contradictory?

:) It's really quite simple. Either a being is without limitations or it has limitations. A being which is conscious is bound by the same limitations all conscious beings are. And in order to be perfect a being must by definition be devoid of all limitations.

Ergo consciousness and perfection are mutually exclusive conditions.


Another way to think about it is that a perfect being must transcend everything, and this means any quality we can envision, imagine, or attempt to apply necessarily falls short of what the "actual qualities" such a being possesses.

Put simply a perfect being must possess a kind of "Over consciousness" or "Super consciousness" one that transcends all the limitations of consciousness.


Put in logical terms you have to coach the perfect being entirely within the bounds of indeterminancy because the only process whereby anything may be asserted is a contradiction, and one can only assert a contradiction and not be wrong when a variable is indeterminate. What this means is essentially that no description of perfection will ever rise to meet the "demands" of such a venture exactly because perfection must always be beyond logic.

NT

If God weren't conscious, He wouldn't be a deity at all; we could just say "the universe" and be talking about the same thing.

Correct, even if there were an unconscious "being" governing the universe, upon discovery of it, we would simply define it as a natural force.

Even a conscious creator would only be interpreted as a natural force, as its will could only be carried out through natural entities.

Correct, even if there were an unconscious "being" governing the universe, upon discovery of it, we would simply define it as a natural force.

Even a conscious creator would only be interpreted as a natural force, as its will could only be carried out through natural entities.
Question: would it be appropriate to worship such a being or force? (Taking worship in its broadest sense, as opposed to simple personalised adoration.)

Is God a conscious being?

Well, yes and not, at once.

Question: would it be appropriate to worship such a being or force? (Taking worship in its broadest sense, as opposed to simple personalised adoration.)

What is more important is the additude with which one worships. If one's additude is sycophantic, then it doesn't matter if the object of one's worship is the greatest entity in existence: it's going to be detrimental to one's life. If one's additude towards worship is an expression of genuine appreciation, even worshiping a nondescript rock is going to add benefit to one's life.

First you have to determine if God is.
Don't quite follow. How can we determine if God is or not if we haven't first defined what it is?

Question: would it be appropriate to worship such a being or force? (Taking worship in its broadest sense, as opposed to simple personalised adoration.)

Appropriate? That is an open-ended question.

I would call it pointless.

What is more important is the additude with which one worships. If one's additude is sycophantic, then it doesn't matter if the object of one's worship is the greatest entity in existence: it's going to be detrimental to one's life. If one's additude towards worship is an expression of genuine appreciation, even worshiping a nondescript rock is going to add benefit to one's life.

I don't agree at all, pointless adoration is a huge limitation to place on one's life.

I don't care if it rains of freezes
'Long as I got my Plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car.

Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nations
With my Plastic Jesus I'll go far.
Plastic Jesus! Plastic Jesus,
Riding on the dashboard of my car

This is Cool Hand Luke inspired since it is what I am watching before heading off to work. For those who have not heard the ernie mars song in its many reincarnations or have not seen Cool Hand Luke (shame on you) go read them here (http://www.commonplacebook.com/culture_and_the_arts/music/favorite_song_lyrics/plastic_jesus.shtm), they are literally quite thought provoking for me.

I don't agree at all, pointless adoration is a huge limitation to place on one's life.

Well, I agree with you. Pointless anything is a huge limitation to place on one's life. It's like the saying goes: "a poor man cannot earn a penny by counting his neighbor's wealth, even if he does so night and day". Pointing out how great something else is doesn't add any benefit to one's life. Adoration is focused on something else. Appreciation is focused on one's own life. By acknowledging that other entities contribute to one's life, one's life grows and is no longer confined to just one body.

Appropriate? That is an open-ended question.

I would call it pointless.
It is pointless if it something outside of life. On the other hand, if, as has been suggested, that acknowledgement is directed to the nature of life itself, it would have an effect on one's attitude to their environment and community that could be either beneficial or harmful, but I wouldn't say negligible.

*Checks Bible*
Yes

*Checks Tora*
Yes

*Checks Qu'Ran*
Yes

[Forgive me if I messed up the spelling of the book, it's been a while since my last religion class, and I don't feel like googling it.]

It is pointless if it something outside of life. On the other hand, if, as has been suggested, that acknowledgement is directed to the nature of life itself, it would have an effect on one's attitude to their environment and community that could be either beneficial or harmful, but I wouldn't say negligible.
Quite so. Hence my question.

*Checks Bible*
Yes

*Checks Tora*
Yes

*Checks Qu'Ran*
Yes

[Forgive me if I messed up the spelling of the book, it's been a while since my last religion class, and I don't feel like googling it.]
I think the answer for the traditional interpretations of Abrahamic religions is fairly self-evident. The question only becomes interesting on their modern interpretations or in the context of Eastern spirituality.

Yes,I'm sorry,I'm doing another one of these things.Sue me if you want.You'll have to find out where the hell I am first.:rolleyes:

Anyways,the last topic I started seemed to have gotten off track but it did seem to bring up another question:Is God a conscious being with emotions and a feeling for time,ethics,etc.?Or is it simply a force?

I mean,does God watch over the universe in another plane or does he reside somewhere in this universe?Or is he just a force,like gravity,that follows patterns or laws?And if he does have emotions,motives and morals,is that why he is concerned with us?And if he does not,why does he bother with us?

Discuss.

God is fiction...And bad fiction at that.

I'm just going to flat out respond to the question. In my opinion, Heaven is on a different plane than the universe and that's where God is. But He is also everywhere. He's omnipresent. I think He cares about us because otherwise He wouldn't've put all the time and effort He did into creating us. And He especially loves human beings because according to the Bible we are the only part of Creation that He didn't just speak into existence. He made Adam with His own hands and breathed His(God's) own breath into him. So He is mindful of mankind because He made us...we don't deserve all the attention we get from Him but He cares about us anyways. Another evidence of His love for us is Jesus. But He does have all kinds of emotions anger(ex.the flood) love(ex. Jesus) happiness(ex. "there is more rejoicing in Heaven over even one soul that is saved than for 99 who don't need to be") sadness(ex. God was beginning to regret ever making man before the flood but love again...he saved noah). Okay remember that's all in my opinion. Feel free to criticize. I'm sure you will because my opinion's based on the fact that the Bible is true.

I 2nd that.

I'm sorry. Yes, God is a conscious being. He doesn't really care much about us living humans though. He is too busy lounging about in heaven while angels sing his praises accompanied by dead souls strumming their harps.

How could the souls be in heaven if they're dead? Heaven is a place where everyone is living forever. According to the Christian faith, believers are alive with Christ in this world and the next.

Appreciation is focused on one's own life. By acknowledging that other entities contribute to one's life, one's life grows and is no longer confined to just one body.

What?

What?
What are you? What defines what you are?

This thing that is "me" is in a large part decided relative to and by other people and things. To say that what I am is entirely restricted to the confines of my physical form ignores so much about me that it cannot be a reasonable definition.

How could the souls be in heaven if they're dead? Heaven is a place where everyone is living forever. According to the Christian faith, believers are alive with Christ in this world and the next.
So what? I would say I was wrong if I even believed in souls in the first place. But I don't, I was being sarcastic in that entire post you quoted. I just thought I'd point that out just in case you didn't notice...:rolleyes:

It is pointless if it something outside of life. On the other hand, if, as has been suggested, that acknowledgement is directed to the nature of life itself, it would have an effect on one's attitude to their environment and community that could be either beneficial or harmful, but I wouldn't say negligible.

Two questions:

1: Are we referring to acknowledgement or worship here? They are quite different. It is one thing to acknowledge the force and adjust one's life and thought accordingly, it is completely different to devote oneself to the force.

2: What do you mean by "nature of life itself," and why does the force need to be related to life to be meaningful?

What are you? What defines what you are?

This thing that is "me" is in a large part decided relative to and by other people and things. To say that what I am is entirely restricted to the confines of my physical form ignores so much about me that it cannot be a reasonable definition.

Completely agreed. If you followed the "Intent" threads, you would see that I believe that there isn't a you that isn't determined by its relationship with the other things in existence.

However, to say that our own life is no longer confined to one body based upon that relevation is ludicrous. No matter how much I realize that my existence is contingent upon the existence of all of reality, my existence ceases when I die.

And I really don't have an idea what that has to do with the worship of an unconscious force that governs all things.

What?

Consider this: one's life is not simply confined to a single body. I mean, after all, if you were living in some sub-Saharan village in a mud hut, your life would be quite different. For that matter, consider all the people that you associate with. Your life would be different indeed if you had no friends or family. These are all things that have an input into one's life, so one can reasonably conclude that they are a part of one's life. The condition of any of these entities can also have an effect on one's life as well. If your relatives were sick and in the hospital, your life would change in response to that. Simillarly, if you were to have people you cared about that were going through difficult times and you encouraged them and helped them overcome their difficulties, their victory would be yours as well.

Wether you realize it or not, everything around you and every entity that you interact with is part of your life. By cultivating that realization, one's life expands.

I'll deal with the second one first;

2: What do you mean by "nature of life itself," and why does the force need to be related to life to be meaningful?
I'm referring to this thing people call "Spirit". Essentially, the degree to which people care about the force is the extent to which it affects them. If the impersonal force is what lets us be alive then that is what people will focus on. It's not necessarily that the idea is meaningless; merely that people will ignore anything that doesn't influence them in some way or another.

1: Are we referring to acknowledgement or worship here? They are quite different. It is one thing to acknowledge the force and adjust one's life and thought accordingly, it is completely different to devote oneself to the force.
They might be completely different things when we consider a personal deity, but I wonder if perhaps the difference is so concrete when we look at an impersonal force. Consider technology: there are very few people today who consciously worship it, but we as a civilisation have become so adjusted to using it that the difference between normal behaviour and worship is merely one of how much we acknowledge its presence. If a force like magic or druidic/Jedi powers were to be a commonly known fact and usable tool, those who consciously acknowledge it and those who worship it would be much the same people.

I'm referring to this thing people call "Spirit". Essentially, the degree to which people care about the force is the extent to which it affects them. If the impersonal force is what lets us be alive then that is what people will focus on. It's not necessarily that the idea is meaningless; merely that people will ignore anything that doesn't influence them in some way or another.

And what would be the point of worshipping "spirit"?

They might be completely different things when we consider a personal deity, but I wonder if perhaps the difference is so concrete when we look at an impersonal force. Consider technology: there are very few people today who consciously worship it, but we as a civilisation have become so adjusted to using it that the difference between normal behaviour and worship is merely one of how much we acknowledge its presence. If a force like magic or druidic/Jedi powers were to be a commonly known fact and usable tool, those who consciously acknowledge it and those who worship it would be much the same people.

While I suppose there are some that worship technology as a savior of humanity and devote their life to it, I see a huge difference between them and those who are dependant on technology for their own wellbeing.

Completely agreed. If you followed the "Intent" threads, you would see that I believe that there isn't a you that isn't determined by its relationship with the other things in existence.

However, to say that our own life is no longer confined to one body based upon that relevation is ludicrous. No matter how much I realize that my existence is contingent upon the existence of all of reality, my existence ceases when I die.

And I really don't have an idea what that has to do with the worship of an unconscious force that governs all things.
Dare I take this as another opportunity to rattle off my Systemity ideas?

... It'd bore you stupid, so I'll summarise it briefly.

I believe that the force that is "I" and the force that governs reality are of a similar vein. Both are the direct product of the ability of things to interact and create systems with self-controlling emergent properties. The only difference is one of scale.

Any questions as to how we, as conscious things, function will go a long way towards solving the problem of how the universe itself functions. At least, that's what I'm speculating.

While I suppose there are some that worship technology as a savior of humanity and devote their life to it, I see a huge difference between them and those who are dependant on technology for their own wellbeing.
True, but that difference is entirely one of acknowledgement. The point at which one begins to marvel at technology is when the line of worship is definitively crossed, given that one uses it all of the time anyway.

As to whether or not "spirit" is worth worshipping, that all depends on what it is. Hopefully those who worship it will be able to some day give a concrete answer to that question. If it is indeed something that governs not just our own essence but can also be said to be universal principle, then the use and acknowledgement of it may well provide some useful social and/or scientific development.

Consider this: one's life is not simply confined to a single body.

Unfortunately, our lives are confined by our own measely bodies.

I mean, after all, if you were living in some sub-Saharan village in a mud hut, your life would be quite different. For that matter, consider all the people that you associate with. Your life would be different indeed if you had no friends or family. These are all things that have an input into one's life, so one can reasonably conclude that they are a part of one's life. The condition of any of these entities can also have an effect on one's life as well. If your relatives were sick and in the hospital, your life would change in response to that. Simillarly, if you were to have people you cared about that were going through difficult times and you encouraged them and helped them overcome their difficulties, their victory would be yours as well.

These things have input into one's experiences, but no more input than repeatedly slamming your head into a wall.

Wether you realize it or not, everything around you and every entity that you interact with is part of your life. By cultivating that realization, one's life expands.

No, one's "life expands" regardless of whether you cultivate the realization or not.

True, but that difference is entirely one of acknowledgement. The point at which one begins to marvel at technology is when the line of worship is definitively crossed, given that one uses it all of the time anyway.

I marvel at how lint can accumulate in my belly button, worshipping said lint would be a significant stretch.

I marvel at how lint can accumulate in my belly button, worshipping said lint would be a significant stretch.
You're not marvelling the lint; that's the key difference. Worshipping the lint itself and displaying explicit appreciation for it (rather than the process by which it arose) aren't terribly different.

I believe that the force that is "I" and the force that governs reality are of a similar vein.

Explain how a force that is "I" and a force that governs reality can co-exist.

Both are the direct product of the ability of things to interact and create systems with self-controlling emergent properties. The only difference is one of scale.

What do you mean by "self-controlling emergent properties?"

Any questions as to how we, as conscious things, function will go a long way towards solving the problem of how the universe itself functions. At least, that's what I'm speculating.

I think it would be far more productive to study how the universe functions, as it is the determinant of how we function.

So what? I would say I was wrong if I even believed in souls in the first place. But I don't, I was being sarcastic in that entire post you quoted. I just thought I'd point that out just in case you didn't notice...:rolleyes:
k, it's sort of difficult to know when you'r being sarcastic over the internet

k, it's sort of difficult to know when you'r being sarcastic over the internet
Well I did say in my first post on this thread that I didn't believe in a God.
*Shrugs* It's no big deal though. I rarely bother to read threads about religion myself.

Well I did say in my first post on this thread that I didn't believe in a God.
*Shrugs* It's no big deal though. I rarely bother to read threads about religion myself.


k

Yes,I'm sorry,I'm doing another one of these things.Sue me if you want.You'll have to find out where the hell I am first.:rolleyes:

Anyways,the last topic I started seemed to have gotten off track but it did seem to bring up another question:Is God a conscious being with emotions and a feeling for time,ethics,etc.?Or is it simply a force?

I mean,does God watch over the universe in another plane or does he reside somewhere in this universe?Or is he just a force,like gravity,that follows patterns or laws?And if he does have emotions,motives and morals,is that why he is concerned with us?And if he does not,why does he bother with us?

Discuss.
As sensibility goes, i don't need to name it, but there is indeed a pervasive driving creative/adaptive force. As is there a pervasive entropic force.

Yanno, Kamisaki is fun to watch. *munches popcorn*

Personally, i think the only reason people believe in god is for closure from the fact that when you die you die. The only thing that keeps me believing in heavan...is that i don't want to go to hell. That was a little off topic but i was bored and thought id post.