What if god does not know of you

[Angst]

Interesting idea Kyriakos. I knew of the idea of God as indifferent. Not of God as unaware.

Yes, I understand that point of view, but you're completely dismissing the fact Surfer and Supe are not integral parts of any person's belief systems. It is a process of categorically dismissing the aspect of "faith" in our lives.

To argue faith on "my plane" you must presume to "have faith", which you cannot because you will not, or you'd have it. For me to argue faith on "your plane", I must step out from my contention of faith, which I cannot because, honestly, I have no desire to. Neither is good for the individual and neither is necessary. It's an "agree to disagree" thing, and dangerously borders offense at any time for either because one misstep is an insult.

edit: Even to get this far, I feel I've forgiven you for an attempt to nonchalantly depose my concept of faith, for the purpose of discussion. I don't want me to have to feel that way and I expect neither do you.

Similarly, and quite contrary to your point, you can't properly discuss theology without studying it academically. Yes, you said something else on the first page. No, it's not true. That's because """faith""" does not grant you argumentative authority. How is faith scrutinizing? Faith is, per definition, fixated upon a belief. It's dogmatic. It does not analyze. Academia, on the other hand, properly presents to you several thousands of years of theological philosophy.

To answer your page one posts:

Ok. Do purple flying unicorns that poo ice cream know the price of tea in China?

1 - Stop ruining the thread.

I'm not angry or even trying to be disrespectful to you or your thread, Kyriakos. I'm seriously saying this is a slippery slope which cannot end well.

& 2 - You're causing the slope.

 

[Tahuti]

Pertinent to the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

 

[Kyriakos]

Pertinent to the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

His 11th century book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. The encounter with skepticism led al-Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present Will of God.

The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna and Al-Farabi) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. Al-Ghazali bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith.[citation needed]

In the next century, Averroes drafted a lengthy rebuttal of al-Ghazali's Incoherence entitled The Incoherence of the Incoherence; however, the epistemological course of Islamic thought had already been set.

I particularly liked the new book being titled "The Incoherence of the Incoherence"

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To argue faith on "my plane" you must presume to "have faith", which you cannot because you will not, or you'd have it. For me to argue faith on "your plane", I must step out from my contention of faith, which I cannot because, honestly, I have no desire to. Neither is good for the individual and neither is necessary. It's an "agree to disagree" thing, and dangerously borders offense at any time for either because one misstep is an insult.

It depends on the scope of the discussion. I agree that when someone offers personal conviction based on personal experiences as a motive for having faith, there is very little to argue about. There is lots of discussion possible when it involves exchange of ideas and creating the possibilities of introducing new angles to view those personal experiences from. This kind of discussion does not revolve around winning an argument, about being right but rather increases understanding of other people's viewpoints.

You say you cannot "step out from my contention of faith". Does this include not being able to consider (not accept) other people's take on the matter? Since this discussion purely happens in subjective terms there is little insult in trying to transport yourself into a viewpoint which isn't yours. I have to do this every time I discuss religion, and I can't say I feel offended when doing so. After all, what harm does it do for me to imagine myself having had a personal spiritual experience. So your statement: "To argue faith on "my plane" you must presume to "have faith", which you cannot because you will not, or you'd have it." is wrong. I can very much imagine to have faith. And you know why I can? Because I discussed faith with people who do have faith. And for most of them I understand their motivation, even though they differ from what mine would be. The key here is not to confuse consideration with acceptance. I do not have to accept your faith to try to understand it. And since the premise was the discussion is limited to subjective personal experiences I cannot question them. Only when you claim the evidence is objective we can have an argument, because then we step into a world which we're both part of, and you're making claims that exist on both your an my plane, as you call it.

Afterthought, because I have had discussion with religious people I am convinced that the experiences of religious people are little different than mine. I might call a conviction intuition while religious people might see a divine source of the conviction. I might call 'talking to God' an inner dialogue. I can't say that it is, but it's my interpretation. There is way more overlap in the experiences of the religious and non-religious than there are differences. The differences arise when we try to explain those experiences. And since the working of the brain in these matters, and the mechanisms of divine interaction are far from clear-cut, there's loads of unknowns and uncertainties to wonder about.

I like reading other people's motivators in that regard, because they always challenge mine since no 2 are the same. I can't imagine having to reconsider your own views, whether they be faithbased or otherwise is offensive. How will you grow in your understanding when the moment your views are challenged you take offence and go into a defensive position in order to maintain those views. The only reason I would think this would happen is when you want to keep your faith, but you are uncertain of the reason you have that faith. Being offended merely by discussion is a very unhealthy attitude to have.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There are many quotes by philosophers or artists of the past, about the issue of a godless pit of despair such as our world, only being possible if...it is in fact godless regardless of one's beliefs on the matter.

"The only excuse that god has is that he does not exist" Stendhal.

This is quite logic but one can also argue that if God is omnipotent then what someone can view as godless pit of despair is just the opposite to this Omnipotent. There is no failure unless God withdraws his omnipotent will and the despair is just temporary phenomena. If you know you are going to win no matter what you are actually apt too prolong the moment of appearing weak. Since the victory you gain is going to be that much better....

Some main works of art are even centered on persons who commit violence, often including murder, on account of their thought that they are mimicking the creator god who has excelled in this sort of spreading of misery.

This is perverted notion. They may be dark side of God but humanity as a matter of rule cannot make progress through aproaching that universal aspect.

This thread is about the view that maybe it is far more optimistic to actually want to think that if a god exists, that god has no real consciousness of human history, or of anything going on here from a human perspective.

I do not see what is optimistic about reducing Gods consciousness to something semi-human. Human perspective is bound to be something limited and superficial. I think God may let Itself to catch by it at times just becouse he has power to limit Itself and appear weak to fulfill some special purpose but it cant be rule of his being in least...

*

I think that the old testament, and latter christian religious texts, are presenting a rather creepy idea of a god. In the old testament it would seem quite evident that the god of those people was merely some sort of warlord who punishes his own slaves by instituting some weird and obscure code of conduct that only he is aware of, and that he may even be changing at will. It does not matter how many die, cause god is always right, cause he is the god.

In the new testament this seems at first to change, but already by the acts of the apostles the message gets more dilluted, and still people die in pretty cruel manner for failing to be as faithful to the god.

Of course that god is not the only one we have seen texts about in our planet, which is rather prolific in giving birth to deities. The historic truth that violence and incredible cruelty takes place in all other parts of the world, despite there often being other religious orders in prominence at those other places, would seem to support the claim that their own gods did not fair much better that our own negative-value deity from a small desert province of the near-east. And this brings me to the question i would like to base the discussion here on:

-Do you think that it is more worthy of causing despair to believe that a god is aware in a conscious matter of what is going on in our planet? And would it, on the contrary, be much better if such a god did exist but was not actually related to humanity in the ways often attributed to the god?

If you have God which has sentinence through matter or any single object or being existing it means you have Omnipotent which is selflimited for certain purpose. That purpose may not be entirely known but it surely means you have Goal and hope.
The second possibility of God who doesnt have or doesnt want to have full sentinence (if only in some part/aspect) with its creation imply some limitation which is in direct contradiction with omnipotence.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The hypothetical in this case involves the assumption that God does exist, and the OP was as clear as he could be that whether or not God actually exists is not up for discussion:

The OP is essentially excluding atheists from the discussion, then, unless they're people who can seriously, with a straight face, argue on the assumption that something they don't believe exists, actually does.

I can't do that, unless I switch into "lol-mode" and think of God as Ceiling Cat. In that case, yes, I'm sure Ceiling Cat is watching over me and my kitties and will smite me if I ever treat them cruelly.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

God is not all-knowing. It's just lonely. All people it talked to got messiah complexes and went around making a lot of stuff up about creating the world and heaven and hell and whatnot. While all God wants is someone to talk to who doesn't go bananaskipcrazy when it is saying "Hi!".

Maybe It is all-knowing and lonely at the same time? Ha, gotcha...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I didn't claim one excluded the other. I just claimed it's not all-knowing and lonely without stating the two are connected.

Sorry.

 

[Angst]

I for one would be pretty lonely if I were God and had a human mentality.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I didn't claim one excluded the other. I just claimed it's not all-knowing and lonely without stating the two are connected.

Sorry.

And what do you base your "just claiming" in....

 

[Kyriakos]

I for one would be pretty lonely if I were God and had a human mentality.

Yes, which is a part of the OP My view is that a god is more likely to be of some very different "consciousness" to us, and i have to suspect that this consciousness is not one which merely includes (and experiences) all of our own consciousness' qualities and then has more added to it.
I tend to think that if a god does exist, the god would be rather hard for us to identify as sentient.

 

[Gucumatz]

I like this topic Kyriakos. I personally choose to believe that God is benevolent but again I am pretty sure the God that exists is far from how anybody currently understands him. Assuming God doesn't know of our existence isn't that far of a leap in this case. If God doesn't know of humans then the concept of heaven or hell itself would be taken as false in this hypothetical [As then God wouldn't have encountered them in either or assessed them or whatever criteria you wish to use here]. If on the individual level God merely is around or may observe but doesn't know us then I think God would still fall under the category of being benevolent as he:

- Would be letting us live our lives as we see fit
- Not be scolding us even for what may we hold morally wrong and that even if no kingdom of heaven exists in the afterlife we have the opportunity to try and make it or the best possible life for us and others here
- The ability to reason and deep thought something many other organisms didn't really evolve to have. If he didn't give us this its fine as well as we naturally emerged from millennia of evolution on his grand experiment.

In short even if God didn't know us, wouldn't he still deserve praise? We respect, admire, and some to even extents worship the great figures of history even though in most cases they were never aware of us either. Their works and deeds give an inspiration or something for us to admire or something for us to search and better ourselves regardless of the hypothetical presented here.

 

[Kyriakos]

I like this topic Kyriakos. I personally choose to believe that God is benevolent but again I am pretty sure the God that exists is far from how anybody currently understands him. Assuming God doesn't know of our existence isn't that far of a leap in this case. If God doesn't know of humans then the concept of heaven or hell itself would be taken as false in this hypothetical [As then God wouldn't have encountered them in either or assessed them or whatever criteria you wish to use here]. If on the individual level God merely is around or may observe but doesn't know us then I think God would still fall under the category of being benevolent as he:

- Would be letting us live our lives as we see fit
- Not be scolding us even for what may we hold morally wrong and that even if no kingdom of heaven exists in the afterlife we have the opportunity to try and make it or the best possible life for us and others here
- The ability to reason and deep thought something many other organisms didn't really evolve to have. If he didn't give us this its fine as well as we naturally emerged from millennia of evolution on his grand experiment.

In short even if God didn't know us, wouldn't he still deserve praise? We respect, admire, and some to even extents worship the great figures of history even though in most cases they were never aware of us either. Their works and deeds give an inspiration or something for us to admire or something for us to search and better ourselves regardless of the hypothetical presented here.

Thanks for the post, and i agree with you

I too would not want to think that a god is in fact cruel, or even that a god might be not cruel but can seem to humans to be cruel. Does it really matter much if a person with elephantiasis was born this way cause a god supposedly wanted to help him in some twisted view of things from the god's perspective? I know that some mysticists even actively support the view that people with genetic disease are born thus so as to "repay past evil in previous lives". I do not like such views at all.

It is a bit of a Stockholm syndrome to argue that a being responsible for what is going on, and with hell going on, is really not an evil being. Which is why i tend to think that if a god exists then that god does not really come into play with most of what we deem as human affairs or history. This can be so while that god is sentient, or not sentient, or any other variation. If i walk into a cave and find an important fossil there, the fossil would not have been there for me to pick up, and neither did i enter the cave looking for it. The end result, though, remains that i would be carrying it with me when leaving the cave. Likewise - who knows - maybe in the end of our time here we may find out that something was there in some way. Or maybe not.

 

[Adjuvant]

To Angst and Ziggy Stardust,

Thank you for your replies. I take them as articulate and well-meaning. I also take them as your conjecture based on your convictions and I have no intention or desire to challenge them or cite what I feel to be errors or prejudices on which your opinions are based. I might be more apt to a longer response had you asked questions, but you're not. You're making statements.

Now it falls under my statement of my contention that it's likely "harmful for the individual" for me to argue and it's time, in this thread, I practice what I preach, and make no effort to change that of which you're already convinced.

I would like to argue, however, I'm not "making that slope", but I'm looking right at it, and you're dancing on it. You're quite the daredevils.

That is all.

 

[Kyriakos]

One of the reasons why i did not want any discussion on the actual (not of this thread) topic of a god existing or not in the first place, is that i am very aware that this issue can be quite in bad taste for many people. FWIW, when i was 23 (11 years ago), i did for half a year revert to a sort of christianity. I know from first hand that i would not really be keen to get into debates about belief at the time, cause that belief was of paramount importance to me during those months. Regardless of what may have been true or not for me or for another, i don't want discussions about the issue on my own OP's account

 

[Angst]

To Angst and Ziggy Stardust,

Thank you for your replies. I take them as articulate and well-meaning. I also take them as your conjecture based on your convictions and I have no intention or desire to challenge them or cite what I feel to be errors or prejudices on which your opinions are based. I might be more apt to a longer response had you asked questions, but you're not. You're making statements.

Now it falls under my statement of my contention that it's likely "harmful for the individual" for me to argue and it's time, in this thread, I practice what I preach, and make no effort to change that of which you're already convinced.

I would like to argue, however, I'm not "making that slope", but I'm looking right at it, and you're dancing on it. You're quite the daredevils.

That is all.

Thanks for your reply yourself. I'm sorry about my rude tone. Certain posting styles (including my own) kinda get to me. That's an explanation for my behavior, mind you - not a legitimization.

Yes, which is a part of the OP My view is that a god is more likely to be of some very different "consciousness" to us, and i have to suspect that this consciousness is not one which merely includes (and experiences) all of our own consciousness' qualities and then has more added to it.
I tend to think that if a god does exist, the god would be rather hard for us to identify as sentient.

It's very much a problem of imagining or percieving a state of mind - an intelligence - lesser or different than your own. If you situate yourself as the ant, you will not become the ant. Your preconceived normativity will warp your perception of the ant's perception. Likewise, if I knew of a higher intelligence than humans, I could make that argument, but it's impossible for me to situate myself into one such imaginary. I am simply not smart enough.

 

[Winston Hughes]

The OP is essentially excluding atheists from the discussion, then, unless they're people who can seriously, with a straight face, argue on the assumption that something they don't believe exists, actually does.

I'm an atheist, who has never held any religious beliefs whatsoever, and I've engaged in numerous discussions of this type. Give it a go, you might be surprised at what you're capable of.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@Adjuvant,

Since you would like to make the argument I am dancing on slopes ...

How does my interest in other people's differing views create a slope?

And although you stated an intent not to argue, I feel that's a little late after you blame my convictions on prejudices. The best method against prejudices is open discussion and a willingness to entertain other people's views.

But I am wondering which of the statements I made was based on prejudices. I don't like prejudices and generalisations and will always try to avoid them. I'll not always succeed.

 

[Adjuvant]

Without being too "preachy", faith to me is the process of filling an internal, psychological "need". While we all have questions about where we come from, where we're going, what's greater than we, and what is some ultimate, greater "right", we still have to, at some point, go about our daily lives. We need to put food on tables, rooves over heads and fuel in gas tanks. Whatever answers we personally accept, whatever is "good enough for us" and allows us to continue maintaining everyday existence, is what will become our integral belief system.

Challenging that causes a virtual internal row for the individual. Now, some people are more resilient to this, others not so much. Therefore, across the board, it should be considered generally unwise to place others in this state without their consent, or to try to encourage the practice when it's not necessary. Yes, I know many people do it, Christians especially sometimes, and I feel they're acting in a poor manner when they do it without having been asked specifically.

I don't believe the "self-examined life" is the only one worth living. I don't believe you're always "doing people good" by encouraging them to question, nor do I believe the practice is always good for the self. At some point, it's time to "get back to business" and in most cases, the sooner the better.

Your prejudice, which is readily apparent to me, but not so for you because you "can't see the forest", is your concrete assertion all experiences are explainable empirically or scientifically. You would need to somehow "loose < sic > that" to begin to share my understanding of faith. Why would you? It's what keeps you glued and it wouldn't do you a single bit of good. I think you're just fine the way you are.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you know every ant on every anthill? No.

Then why should you expect a god to know you?

I am not omniscient.