|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An anthropomorphic God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4750 From: u.k Joined: |
We all know God could possibly exist, and it's up to you if you want to follow the desire for God to exist, if you have it.
Is it any wonder, when the universe is so great, that we think a Creator made it? Is it so arrogant, to expect that being to be a peacable Christ? Have you not observed his holy character? 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. 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) 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? 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. So now I've had a month or so of deconversion, I'm starting to see the sense to a designer again. Obviously I still agree whole-heartedly with evolution. This isn't a relapse.(I'm still evo/agno. edited to meet the requirements of AdminPhat (Since there is no philosophy forum, I'll leave it to admin's Jar's discresion This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-26-2005 08:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3447 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Not sure if I understand what you are saying. I don't understand Christianity as claiming that God is a person. Those who believe that Jesus was God, say that he was a person, but he supposedly ascended and is not technically a person anymore. Or are you using human in the scifi sense of humanoid and God may be some type of alien? I don't think God is consider to have physical form today. I guess a little more clarification would be good. "I refuse to think of them as chin hairs. I think of them as stray eyebrows." -Janette Barber-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Hi mike. Reading your post led me to think of some questions and some comments. The questions are to ponder. I don't expect you to post any answers. They are questions intended to provoke thought. I won't be giving my answers either.
Is it any wonder, when the universe is so great, that we think a Creator made it?
Question 1: Is the universe "so great" in an absolute sense? Or is it that, as the result of evolution, we fit into the universe very well, so that the universe is great only in the sense that we fit into it by virtue of our evolutionary history?
We only have one example of consciousness at a sentient level, and that is that of a person.
Some people think that we are not the only conscious creatures. I think of chimpanzees, dogs, and probably even kangaroos, as being conscious.
So now I've had a month or so of deconversion, I'm starting to see the sense to a designer again. Question 2: Is the designer a deist's God who started the universe going, then allowed it to develop by itself? Question 3: Is God instead an entity that cares about people, and spies on their thoughts. Question 4: Is God one who is not satisfied with his creation, and regularly adjusts things in the world so that they work more to his/her liking. Question 5: Is this intrusive interfering God the Christian God, or a different God. Now some comments on my questions. In a way, I don't think questions 1 and 2 matter much. Whether the world is absolutely great, or great because I am the result of evolving to fit the world, it seems that this would not significantly change my life or my outlook. Similarly, it is hard to see how atheism, agnosticism, or belief in an aloof God of the deists would have any effect on my outlook on life. Questions 3, 4, 5 do seem to matter. That is, the answer should affect my outlook on life. While I am about it, Question 6: Was Jesus a great moral teacher? I think the answer to this question also makes a difference. And it makes a difference, even if Jesus was just a man (not God), and perhaps even if he was just a fictional character.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Is it any wonder, when the universe is so great, that we think a Creator made it? In what sense is it "great"? Don't we have to be able to compare it to something to pronounce it great? It's the only universe we know. For all we know, it might a very mediocre universe as universes go. And then there are things like pain that make one hesitant to use the word "great.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DorfMan Member (Idle past 6071 days) Posts: 282 From: New York Joined: |
quote: No man has seen God, but he is referred to in the masculine.
quote: Acts 1:11 They said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven." He took on our form forever. Christ rose from the dead physically (Luke 24:39), in the same body that had died (John 20:20), which was nonetheless transformed to a higher level of existence (Philippians 3:21; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:42-44), and He will continue to have His body forever (see Revelation 1:18; Romans 6:9; Philippians 3:21). I hope this is of help to you. (Google - Christ took on our form forever)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3447 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That doesn't make him a person. Arach or ramoss may correct me on this, but I don't think the Hebrew language had a neutral gender. quote:I don't see that the scriptures really supports that teaching. You speak of transformed to a higher existence, transforming our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. You don't know what the transformation consists of and Revelations is a vision.
quote:Only if those who believe Jesus is God are right. But his followers did not believe that he was God. This message has been edited by purpledawn, 10-27-2005 07:54 AM "I refuse to think of them as chin hairs. I think of them as stray eyebrows." -Janette Barber-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
mike the wiz
Hey there mike. I have a question concerning your statement here.
We only have one example of consciousness at a sentient level, and that is that of a person. By sentient do you mean having the capacity to think? Animals exhibit many traits of what we would deem sentience so I would like to see if you can nail down here what is meant by sentient that is only capable by men. As for the idea of alien intelligence somewhere in the universe to which we can apply the nature of evolution and the laws of biology to allow for the probability of these life forms other than ourselves in no way implies that a god that does not follow those same is on the same footing probability wise. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4750 From: u.k Joined: |
Hi guys.
Sidelined writes: By sentient do you mean having the capacity to think? Animals exhibit many traits of what we would deem sentience so I would like to see if you can nail down here what is meant by sentient that is only capable by men. There's a few responses, so I'll answer this question, as NWR also posed it. Sentience Some definitions from dictionary.com read; consciously perceiving The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness. You claimed animals exhibit traits of what you deem sentience. Personally, I think it's a waste of time, because I think you honestly and unwittingly equivocate with what I mean when I pose this, as I'm not claiming anything that is untrue. But I'm actually talking about people. I'm not debating how conscious animals are, but rather I am talking about the reality that they have no scriptures, and that they are NOT people, which is what I'm talking about. As far as we know, animals have rudimentary awareness. This is NOT what I mean, nor do I mean consciousness, or sentience and their definitions. What I mean is that we all know that we are the only personas/peoples on this planet. We are the only advanced species. Our level of consciousness can be described as a person/human, where no other animal can be. Thus how reasonable is it to suggest God is a person, if we only have one example of consciousness at our level, BEING person/s. Basically, there's no reason to suggest that our level of consciousness resides anywhere BUT in persons. Take evolution for example, it has only produced one species, person/s. Who is to say that any other animal will ever be a person, in another galaxy? Are dolphins people, despite their intelligence? Are dogs people despite their intelligence? How probable is it that consciousness = person? I pose that it's improbable, as we have many consciouss species, that are not people. To get a person, you need the conditions and morphology of the specific human species. So just how unreasonable is it to suggest only a person is and ever will be this type of specific consciousness? (NWR. I'm still thinking about those intriguing and reasonable questions). This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-27-2005 11:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Mike, are you looking at things through a glass darkly?
How do you know an Orang is not sitting, eating a fruit at this very moment asking "Are humans sentient?" Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
How do you know an Orang is not sitting, eating a fruit at this very moment asking "Are humans sentient?" If it read Mike's last post it wouldn't need to ask the question! Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4750 From: u.k Joined: |
How do you know an Orang is not sitting, eating a fruit at this very moment asking "Are humans sentient?" To be honest, I think he would have expressed it, according to morphology. In that, if he is thinking that, then it must be that he is endowed evolutionarily to do so. I look at this morphologically. An ape can possibly be thinking this, but there's no evidence to show that. With early humans, you have cave-drawings etc.. Think about it like this; If you have language, then you must be endowed with it because it is useful fro survival. If you don't have it, then why would you posses the thought-capacity for it, if you could never act upon it? An eagle can fly. It's like eagles asking, "How do you know humans can't fly, they just never do?". Our thinking is unique to us. If Oragn was thinking what you suggested, he should have shown it by now. It's true absence of evidence because the only reason he wouldn't have shown it, is that he hasn't got it. There's no reason to not express it. Early humans did. I hope you catch my point. I don't disagree that animals have intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
mike the wiz
You claimed animals exhibit traits of what you deem sentience. Personally, I think it's a waste of time, because I think you honestly and unwittingly equivocate with what I mean when I pose this, as I'm not claiming anything that is untrue. But I'm actually talking about people Of course you are talking about people mike. The issue I am raising is that there may not be a difference except in degree of abiliites. Animals remember, have emotions, anticipate and plan as well as exhibit things similar to what may be considered superstitious behaviour. Humans manipulate their enviroment to a degree that animals do not and can devise means of employing abstract thought to find relationships where none were obvious at first glance.
I'm not debating how conscious animals are, but rather I am talking about the reality that they have no scriptures, and that they are NOT people, which is what I'm talking about. They have no scriptures but they have no radio nor television nor theatre either.These are the product of men excercising there abilities as social animals to engage in actions that enhance their appreciation of the world.
Our level of consciousness can be described as a person/human, where no other animal can be. Thus how reasonable is it to suggest God is a person, if we only have one example of consciousness at our level, BEING person/s. I think you mean to say "how unreasonable is it" since this is consistent with the OP here
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) 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? 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. Now the arguement becomes the allowence for a god that is sentient in the same way humans are. To allow for sentience in aliens we allow for them to have followed similar laws of physics and biology as well as evolution. It is not clear on the face of your arguement how a god would accomplish this without being bound to the same rules. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3633 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
How do you know an Orang is not sitting, eating a fruit at this very moment asking "Are humans sentient?" Jar, given that when I first found this site, you had this avatar... I have always envisioned you as that very fruit-eating Orang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2483 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The Romans didn't believe that barbarians had language. The term barbarian arrises from the fact that these fur wear peoples would run around shouting nothing but "bar bar bar".
Just because group 1 (humans) isn't smart enough to recognize the language of group 2 (animal species x) doesn't mean that group 2 doesn't have a language. Bees have language. We recogzine that. Do bees have thought? By your scenario thought and language are linked. Whales and dolphins have language. We don't have the foggiest idea what they are saying. It could be "Hey, look a fish!" over and over. Or it could be an ongoing philisophical debate about the nature of the violent ape-like creatures who harpoon and net them. I've seen plenty of places where people say things like "Dogs don't dream." Well, I have dogs. And either they dream, or every time they sleep they have seizures. Which is more likely? I can't tell you what dogs dream, though it involves a lot of running and barking. Personally, I don't think Orangs are wondering if humans are intelligent, but just because we haven't figured out what they are thinking, doesn't mean they aren't thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I am.
Let's look. I spend a couple hours a day getting my food. The rest of my life is devoted to playing with the kids, fooling around with my favorite squeeze, and thinking weighty matters. If humans were sentient, why would they spend half their lives working for food? Why would they make war? Why would they use contracts to limit interpersonal relations, like marriage? No, I see no indication that humans are sentient. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024