Preserved Topic: Where has God been lately? (Page 1 of 1)

Or the Devil, for that matter? They're supposed to be the trustees of this forum, but I don't see them participating too much in the goings on here. Granted, I haven't read everything, but I haven't seen one post yet from either of them! Slackers...

They're a joke, in the end, they're the Doc, just like Einstein used to be on DHTML (I think). An interesting thought...Doc is God, but doc is also the devil, so it doesn't matter how you live your life, cause in the end you're going to the same guy.



Koan 63:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

yeah...I'd heard something like that...

-= 'I'm not insensitive...I just don't give a shit =-

Dang it! I read that topic and came here with my sleeves all rolled up ready for a real juicy exchange.

. . : newThing

me too

DigitalUbiquity

well ok then - on that note...

where HAS God been lately?

Alright, I haven't been down into this hallway recently...
<interlaces fingers, flexes hands, cracks knuckles>

god is in a serious state of transition right now. S/he's here, s/he just doesn't yet know what role s/he is going to play in the near future.

god has gone through these stages of transition before. s/he had one of these sorts of changes around the time people first learned how to farm. Before that time, when people were wanderers, god didn't care much for the seasons...s/he just worried about people catching enough food for their family.

As agriculture caught on, and people learned to farm, god became a lot more concerned with things like water, and sunlight...also the proper cycle of the seasons and fertility (both plants and people--it takes lots of man/hrs to make a farm, even a subsistance one, work). Agriculture leads to people settling down, establishing homes, other businesses, other trades.

Sometime in there god undertook a serious change. s/he became a he. He was responsible for protecting that home. He became a lot more violent, harsh. As people were crowded together, more rules of conduct were needed. God was very involved with laws and war and protection.

Some 3000 years or more passed and people were not just dealing with their own, relatively small, communities anymore. They were traveling, dealing with other people who had different laws and different ways of living. Trying to get all those people to work together was a significant challenge. God had a huge part to do with that. He was still worried about protection...if his name was summoned for defense (or offense, for that matter) he normally showed, but he had other worries too. His workload was shifted a bit.

Today, god isn't quite sure how to act. Humans have some significant problems, challenges to face. Those challenges are, in some ways, different from any we (as a species) have ever had to face before. Some of those challenges are the same ones we've been facing for a long time. god is going through another transition period...just like us. s/he'll figure it out, eventually. s/he's still here, ya just gotta know where to look.

god is a creation of the human mind...a necessary, useful, real, and in all other ways legitimate creation, but a creation nonetheless. Just like the laws of physics...the theory of gravity...politics...and time. All very useful, necessary, real creations of the wonderful thing that is the human mind.

The theories of physics and chemistry and political philosophy are not the same today as they were 4000 years ago, why should god?

It's just we've caught god in the middle of a transition period. Be patient, s/he'll show up somewhere.

mobrul

God is a figment of your deranged imagination. That's why you can't find him.

- There was a time when Religion ruled the world. Today we call them the Dark Ages. -

But how do we know that in a few hundred years, this will not be called the dark-ages,and the previous dark ages will be all but forgotten, residing only in myth and legend in the hearts of men/women/lkittle blue aliens?



Koan 63:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

Gah! Doc is God!? I could understand it if he was Cod, but God!? I think my brain is fried now . (Just to be on the safe side, though: Doc, you're not going to hold all that stuff that we talked about against me, are you? I did repent, remember?)

Sorry to disappoint, Bugimus! I was just looking at the main forums page and realized that I had never seen a post from God or the Devil...

(Um, OK, I'll admit it. I did have the ulterior motive of wanting to see what people would say. You may draw and quarter me now. No, wait. Let's just go with hanging. Less painful.)

quote:

---

But how do we know that in a few hundred years, this will not be called the dark-ages,and the previous dark ages will be all but forgotten, residing only in myth and legend in the hearts of men/women/lkittle blue aliens?

---

That is a very good point, of course (except for maybe the little blue aliens part ). As we all know, there is really no such thing as non-revisionist history--it is impossible to see the past through anything else but the present, because that's all we really know, empirically speaking. If the future is anything like Star Trek, then this will most certainly be known as another dark age. If it's like a lot of the apocalyptic sci-fi horror stories out there, the future is not even going to remember us.

[Edit] Forgot Mobrul... oops. Interesting theory, God in transition. It kind of presupposes that God is a creation of humanity, though, and not the other way around (right?), which is a point that would most probably still be in contention around here, at least from what I've seen in other threads. I guess it would be futile to go down that road, though, as it's pretty much a matter of faith. Either you believe or you don't.

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-25-2002).]

I have decided that I like Plain Original Oreo's.... not any of this double stuffed Oreo with extra cream... Perfection just can not be made any better!

. . .

Oh, God, why did you have to say that! Now I want Oreos! Aaaaaarrrrrgghhhh!

I believe that Mankind should start slowly step away from 'God' and the 'Devil' and start accepting responsibility for itself. Only then can we start addressing the real problems that we have...

That's interesting, because I always saw the philosopher's quest to disprove the existence of God as a way of shirking responsibility (ie, if there is no "ultimate power," then there is no "ultimate responsibility"). To look at it another way, doing away with the concept of God is kind of like doing away with the superego, which leads to some pretty anti-social psyches. It would be great, of course, if human beings had an innate sense of responsibility, but I don't think we do. At least I don't--I happen to have a tremendous sense of responsibility, but not a lick of it is innate.

In other words, I think if you want to do away with the concept of God, you need to internalize that function, and I don't think the majority of humanity can do that (and I include myself in that majority... maybe I'm just weak ).

[Edit] Oh, and I'm still craving those Oreos. And a nice glass of red wine.



[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-25-2002).]

First off, I would like to point out that aliens are green, not blue, and appearently all male. Why else would we call them 'little green men'?

I think that morbul's blurb on God may be one of the most insightful I have read in quite some time. Morbul also doesn't presuppose that God is a creation of humanity, he (she?, I guess I don't really know) damn well says that at the end of his post. And, if God is not a creation of humanity, then how do you explain the multitude of [contradictory] religions that have existed throughout human history.

As a life long athiest (in the loosest sence), I have never really been able to wrap my head around this topic (which is why I was so excited when I read the header originally), but it seems to me that God is where God always will be. We just haven't found God yet. I have always believed that religion and science all both searching for God, but somewhere along the line religion said,

"We found God, but we can't really prove it. So you just have to trust us, and here are the rules."

Where as, science is constantly challenging it's own beliefs and tries to reconsile its contradictions.

I think the question should not be 'Where has God been lately?' But, 'Where has God been all along?' My guess is the former question stems from global current events, and the theory that things a so much worse then they have been before. But our time of stife is no different then any past time. We just have bigger guns and more people to carry them into battle then at any other point in human history.

DigitalUbiquity

Interesting read so far

God is a creation of mankind, as is religion. When their life on this world turned for the worse people needed something that made life worth living. They created a religion with an afterlife and it gave them a reason to go on through the hard times and at the same time giving the suffering a reason (a test from God or "it is the will of God"). Authorities has then used religion to press people into working harder, because if they did not they would "spend the rest of eternity in hell". One example of this is the Catholic church during the Middle Ages, they used their concept of God to exploit the rest of society. When the ability to travel increased the religion loosed it's grip on the people as they saw that there were other ways to live.

Friedrich Nietzche : "Faith means not wanting to know what is true. "

God has never been, and will never be, anywhere except in the minds of those who believe. And they will not be able to convince others of it, except those who need/want to believe it, because s/he is just an invention of their imagination.

my $.02

-= Veneficuz =-
"Mundus vult decipi. Ergo decipiatur."

OK, DigitialUbiquity, you've confused me here:

quote:

---

I think that morbul's blurb on God may be one of the most insightful I have read in quite some time. Morbul also doesn't presuppose that God is a creation of humanity, he (she?, I guess I don't really know) damn well says that at the end of his post.

---

What mobrul says at the end of his/her post is this:

quote:

---

god is a creation of the human mind...a necessary, useful, real, and in all other ways legitimate creation, but a creation nonetheless. Just like the laws of physics...the theory of gravity...politics...and time. All very useful, necessary, real creations of the wonderful thing that is the human mind.

---

That is not presupposition? Or did you misinterpret what I was trying to say? Presuppose means "to require as an antecedent in logic or fact," and I think that mobrul's argument does require as an antecedent the fact that God is a creation of the human mind. Not to be ornery, but I just wanted to clear that up.

Also, I could say that God does exist and be as justified as you are in saying that he does not exist...

Anyway, it's all moot. God does exist. He posted here (about halfway down). I think that answers my original question.

I don't think I've ever been uni-sex before...
For the record, mobrul is a he.

mobrul

Thank you mobrul, your gender has been duly noted.

You just gotta be careful sometimes, you know?

You are right, my understanding of the meaning of presupposition was flawed. I thought you were saying that he (morbul is a boy, he told me so) was implying that god is a creation of the human mind. When infact that very statement was there in plain text for all to see.

But it was still insightful.

I don't deny that God may exist, I just havn't been convinced yet. And being a creature of free will, I have the right to require convinceing.

DigitalUbiquity

OK, I think we're on the same page now .

And I'm all for free will, too. I respect that you have an open mind on the subject, and as a thinking person you naturally have questions. That's a good thing .

Something that I was thinking about... just thought I'd throw it out there (get ready for some disjointed rambling): while many people are quick to point out that believing in the existence of God is an act of faith, isn't it also an act of faith to not believe in God? Also, I think some people define "faith" as believing something despite evidence to the contrary. Of course, they might not put it that way, but that's basically the idea.

This is kind of related to something I did some research on a while back. I was writing an article on how the Korean definition of myth is different from the Western definition of myth. Obviously I can't go into the whole argument here, but I did some research on the word "myth" in the English language. As most of you probably know, it comes from the Greek word mythos. I, however, never really knew what mythos meant; in Greek it was originally contrasted with logos (Biblical scholars here will be most familiar with that word from it's use in the first chapter of the Gospel of John). To put it simply, both logos and mythos refer to truth, but logos refers to the type of truth that can be rationalized, discussed, and tested, while mythos is the type of truth that is simply accepted and cannot be proven.

This may be kind of a stretch, but I've always thought of faith as a type of mythos, whereas logos represents the empirical approach of science. These days, however, myth has taken on the exact opposite meaning (ie, something false), so I don't usually make this comparison. I think if you understand the original meaning of the words, though, that it has some merit.

Another interesting thought: the word "mythology" = mythos + logos. I know that it reduces to "the science of myth," but in light of the original meanings it's a pretty interesting combination...

Man, I had better get to bed before I fall asleep on my keyboard and you guys get a mile-long post full of the letter g...

[Edit] Weariness-induced typo fixed. Feh.

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-26-2002).]

...also, just for the record, my name is mobrul, not 'morbul'.

mobrul

Ok, morbul. I think it is really annoying when people mispell names.

<cynical voice>
HaHaHA
Very F***'n funny
</cynical voice>


mobrul

Whoa, I didn't mispell your name, did I?

I was looking over what I wrote last night and realized that it might be interpreted as saying having faith precludes logic or reason, which isn't what I meant. I think you can have faith and still be logical.

In fact, I think we take more things on faith than we do on hard, solid evidence. How would politicians get elected otherwise?

YEEH...downt yoo h8 eet whin peepl speel bardlee?

Woo! 15 posts...f******g finally



-= 'I'm not insensitive...I just don't give a shit =-

I think I saw God at an ATM at the 7-11 last night... could have been just another guy in an AC/DC shirt, so I could be mistaken...

njuice42
icq 957255

sorry mobrul... my bad...

DigitalUbiquity

I was fascinated with mobrul's theory on the natuire of god, a god in transition. It occured to me that it hardly mattered in that light whether you believed in an actual real "GOD" as an independent being, or god as a fabrication of the human psyche. As an observation of the nature of god, even if s/he is not a creation of humanity, why shouldn't GOD go through phases, living a (quasi) life of transition and growth? Whether we belive or not, the concept of GOD and/or Gods has been a deciding factor in our growth as a species and a society, and as a working hypotheses it seems to fit the facts quite well IMHO.

I like the idea of imagining GOD having a personal "crises of faith", it might explain a lot of things happening in this world today. We all need something to believe in, and as has already been pointed out, even atheism is a form of belief, based upon too few facts.

Hmm. I wonder now, would this be a "mid-life crises", or perhaps some kind of deist puberty thing? If we could decide this, we would also have a better glimpse of where we as a society are, young and stupid, or old and senile? Interesting thoughts for me to ponder on.

Your pal, -doc-

quote:

---

I was fascinated with mobrul's theory on the natuire of god, a god in transition. It occured to me that it hardly mattered in that light whether you believed in an actual real "GOD" as an independent being, or god as a fabrication of the human psyche.

---

Interesting idea, Doc, but I think it does matter whether or not you believe in a real God--at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition. One of the primary traits of the God of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible is constancy, or steadfastness.

Malachi 3:6 - I the LORD do not change.

James 1:17 - Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Granted, this is what God is saying about Himself, so if you choose not to believe Him than the issue may be moot. If, however, you believe that God lies, that pretty much destroys any foundation you might have for your faith. So I think it does matter whether or not you believe in God, and whether or not you believe He's telling the truth.

I'm not saying that everyone has to accept this, just that you're most probably not going to agree with mobrul's theory if you believe in the God of Judeo-Christian tradition. I would imagine that Allah would be similar, but I don't know that much about Islam.

No, there is a way to 'justify' both cases...if you consider that God (as an entity, belief, whatever) is timeless. However, because we are not, we would 'see' apparent changes in His/Her/Its being. So both points can be valid at the same time.

Well, if you're talking about human perceptions, then I guess you have a point. In which case we would have to say that human perceptions of God have changed, rather than saying that God has changed. I can agree with that.

Exactly. Human perception changes, but not the subject.

I'd like to imagine that GOD is not "lying" per sé, at least not intentionally. I think we all imagine sometimes that we do not change, that as we were yesterday is the same as we are today. I can see many benefits in cultural terms if the basis of a belief system, (god?) remains stable for a long time, with as few changes as possible. Still, change is inevitable, and even GOD has to grow up sometime! The books and scriptures may say one thing, but as they say, "don't believe everything you read in the paper!"

Your pal, -doc-

Well, Doc, I suppose that's your perception of God--as part of the cosmic system and subject to it's laws, one of which states that change is inevitable. The traditional perception of the Judeo-Christian God is that He created the cosmic system and is therefore not subject to it.

Then again, all of you may just be one of my delusions. How do I know that I'm not really sitting in the Asylum right now, merely imagining that I'm sitting in front of a computer in Korea?

Eh, now my head hurts. Nurse! Meds!

Hmmm...something that exists outside of time cannot change. It is not necessary, because change is a function of time. Viewed over a large period of time, one sees patterns. If one could see something over a period of all time, maybe there would be no real perceivable change at all, just as viewing something real close up does not reveal the whole picture. One must first step back to see the thing in question. Viewed from far enough away, one could see everything. I hope this analogy is clear.

pssst!'I think you forgot that wakky stole them...he's always finding new, interesting ways of tricking new members out of their meds...'

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-30-2002).]