Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An anthropomorphic God?
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 31 of 37 (255329)
10-28-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-26-2005 11:07 AM


Mike,
I think we may be getting just a bit sidetracked here.
A concise bit of clarification might do a lot of good for the topic. I find this topic interesting & would like to talk about it, but I've read the whole thread a few times and I still don't know where to start. Can you help bring some focus back to the topic with a pointed thesis or two?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-26-2005 11:07 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2005 12:49 PM zephyr has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 37 (255334)
10-28-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Ben!
10-28-2005 11:24 AM


Re: What might an Orang say?
My only point is that we do see things through a human-centric orientation. That's fine, afterall we are humans. But we also need to keep that limitation in mind.
To go back to the OP, "An anthropomorphic God?", the answer is yes. That is how we would see GOD. But it may not be the only possible vision.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Ben!, posted 10-28-2005 11:24 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Ben!, posted 10-28-2005 12:01 PM jar has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 33 of 37 (255339)
10-28-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
10-28-2005 11:34 AM


Re: What might an Orang say?
To go back to the OP, "An anthropomorphic God?", the answer is yes. That is how we would see GOD. But it may not be the only possible vision.
I agree... kind of. I guess my point is that, we're humans, we'll always be humans. Postulating visions and points of view that we can't take seems meaningless to me.
I'll just reply to the OP. That'll make things easier. You can reply to that if there's anything of interest for you there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-28-2005 11:34 AM jar has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 34 of 37 (255340)
10-28-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-26-2005 11:07 AM


Hey MTW,
I'll give this a shot.
mike_the_wiz writes:
Now I'm quite aware that this is an anthropomorphic concept and that it's absurd to some.
We only have one example of consciousness at a sentient level, and that is that of a person.
It's not clear that human-like intelligence could create this universe. Furthermore, it's not clear that a non-human-like intelligence COULDN'T create this universe. So... no anthropomorphic concept fits here, as far as I can tell.
Except the one where we see ourselves in everything else. We conceputalize through metaphor and through our mirror systems (our system that matches another being doing something with ourself doing the same thing). That is part of our biology. It's a human's world, because we see ourselves in everything.
mike_the_wiz writes:
That's one evidence, of one sentient entity. Is it so absurd to think as God as a person when for all we know, the only conscious entities are persons? For all we know! (My argument is NOT that we are the only sentience therefore there are no other sentient organisms)
I would say, you haven't shown what types of intelligence are necessary to create a universe. Until you do that, evidence of existence and evidence of sentience is not evidence of anything... except evidence of existence and evidence of sentience.
mike_the_wiz writes:
So if you allow a notion of aliens, as a possibility, but not God, even though his sentience is based on one evidence of a human, then you entertain a notion of a sentience, in something other than a person, even though you don't entertain sentience as a possibility, in a person (God). Can you see the problem?
Sure. You can't limit "sentience" to just one thing. I'd offer the viewpoint that only humans can have human-like sentience. An almost vacuous statement, but surprisingly is challenged often.
mike_the_wiz writes:
Even though we have one case of sentience at this level as being a person(the human species), you will attribute the possibility of this sentience to aliens, but not a claimed to be, person.
In my view that's a mistake. Human sentience is based on a lot of things that will never be replicated, including human biology, human culture, and the environment of this earth. Aliens, Gods, Orangs... none of them have these things.
Mike, you might want to read up on "Embodied Cognition" and "Distributed Cognition"; these movements suggest that minds are dependent on all of these important factors. Human-like AI is only possible in the case that robots and robotic environment converges on humans and human-like environment.
This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/10/28 09:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-26-2005 11:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 37 (255345)
10-28-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by zephyr
10-28-2005 11:25 AM


Okay. I think message #34 by Ben, is basically a more correct and full evaluation of the situation.
I would say that my original question is still somewhat reasonable.
I said;
That's one evidence, of one sentient entity. Is it so absurd to think as God as a person when for all we know, the only conscious entities are persons?
I personally think that Sidelined and Ben and others, have adequately shown why aliens are possible and even probable, according to evidence.(Also, I admitt that I phrased this wrong, as we are not the only conscious entities, I will concede this at this stage, as a spank on the wrist from peers ).
I still think the one case we have on earth, of a creative and advanced sentient being, gives some credence to the possibility of a personal God.
to expound and further my argument, I would posit that the more sentient the being, the more personality it has.
People often show me the personality in higher-intelligence life forms. Such as monkeys, dogs, cats.
It seems reasonable to still suggest that while others are correct, and especially Ben, in pointing out that this doesn't mean God is a person, or that there is evidence that he is a person, that the more intelligent you get, the more of a persona you have.
If God is under the same rule (which obviously he is if he has intelligence), is it then reasonable to go further with that suggestion, and say that God must a have a persona if he/it, is highly intelligent?
(At this point, I am content to name my own musings as speculative and vacuous possibilities, at best.) So just look at these as questions and suggestions, not facts.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-28-2005 12:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by zephyr, posted 10-28-2005 11:25 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 10-28-2005 1:05 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 37 by zephyr, posted 10-29-2005 1:04 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3447 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 36 of 37 (255349)
10-28-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
10-28-2005 12:49 PM


Persona
quote:
that the more intelligent you get, the more of a persona you have.
If God is under the same rule (which obviously he is if he has intelligence), is it then reasonable to go further with that suggestion, and say that God must a have a persona if he/it, is highly intelligent?
My question would be then, where does this persona manifest itself?
If it manifests itself in the writings or minds of man, is it truly God's persona?
If it manifests itself in nature, is it persona for personification?

"I refuse to think of them as chin hairs. I think of them as stray eyebrows." -Janette Barber-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2005 12:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 37 of 37 (255487)
10-29-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
10-28-2005 12:49 PM


Well, most popular concepts of God don't involve being bound by any kind of rules, and one could easily say his/her/its intelligence is of a different nature than that of humans. Also, it seems the most commonly conceived versions are described as unchanging, which might suggest a limited personality. Then again, if one actually reads the Bible, that tenet falls apart. "Use human feces to cook your food - but if you object, you can use cow. A holocaust of animals will cleanse your sins - wait, no, just believing will cleanse your sins." Hmm... maybe you're right, Mike....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2005 12:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024