God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Vorlons are just screwing with our minds.

Last time I checked god couldn't even pick up a piece of paper. Now it can't be understood clearly. The only question I have, being a worthy believer, is, "How is this all my fault?" So I clearly need god's help.

Does anyone feel like they're going in circles?

 

[Atheos]

This is an equivocation fallacy.

Why would I, or anyone, communicate with someone who does not understand what I say?
Why would I, or anyone, communicate with someone who does not listen to what I say?

"Either God can communicate clearly and all Christians and Jews and Muslims should be on the same page -OR-"

Right. Parents communicate clearly and their children are all on the same page all the time. It's amazing that this is back at babies being able to understand concepts.

At least responsible and loving parents do make the effort of communicating with their children and respond as much as is in their ability when their children ask questions. The behavior of "god" is invariably indistinguishable from the behavior of "nothing" in this regard. Parents are capable of dumbing down their responses to whatever level the child is capable of understanding, and they are incapable of reading the minds of the children to be sure the point was communicated as intended. "God" would ostensibly be capable of dumbing down any response to a level able to be understood clearly by every individual; god would be able to read the mind of the individual and know if further clarification was needed. Furthermore, god would never fatigue in this endeavor because god has unlimited power and god supposedly cares about each individual more than we can possibly imagine.

If a child was moving towards a horrible menace that would cause it unimaginable long-term pain a caring parent would expend every possible effort to communicate clearly and effectively. Yet depending on the version of "god" one believes in one readily accepts that god allows the vast majority of people to wander headlong into extreme and unending torment, choosing only to communicate the danger in such vague terms that some believe it to be like being burned alive endlessly, some believe it to be momentary, some believe it doesn't exist at all and others believe it to be nothing more than a lonely feeling. Some believe that homosexuals, people who tell lies, people too afraid to stand up for their imaginary friend in the face of brutal torture and people whose only crime is skepticism all get summarily tossed into an eternal lake of fire. Others believe in a much more merciful god who doesn't have a lake of fire all stoked up in which to dump the vast preponderance of humanity.

Every message that purports to be from a god comes delivered by human beings and is more often than not wrapped up in absurdities, atrocities and contradictions. The evidence is entirely consistent with the proposition that all such messages are the result of human imagination. There is no reason to believe any of it came from anywhere else.

 

[Kharakov]

So you're saying that god is not omnipotent?

Then you are not a Jew, Christian, or Muslim. Which religion are you? Just curious.

I believe in the pragmatic use of atheism to cause certain behaviors in rebellious portions of the populace, if that answers your question.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So you're saying that god is not omnipotent?

Then you are not a Jew, Christian, or Muslim. Which religion are you? Just curious.

I believe in the pragmatic use of atheism to cause certain behaviors in rebellious portions of the populace, if that answers your question.

You're using the word "atheism" wrong. The term you're looking for is actually "machine guns". It's a common mistake.

 

[Kharakov]

Every message that purports to be from a god comes delivered by human beings and is more often than not wrapped up in absurdities, atrocities and contradictions.

What, like a human speaking for God? I'm pretty sure that the whole "last prophet" thing of Islam was supposed to end that. Then again, children like to "help", and you don't want to crush their spirits- although sometimes you need to knock them off their pedestal in public when they cause sorrow and pain in a portion of the populace.

At least responsible and loving parents do make the effort of communicating with their children and respond as much as is in their ability when their children ask questions. The behavior of "god" is invariably indistinguishable from the behavior of "nothing" in this regard.

The psychology of communicating with a young mind is complicated. Even the most receptive, understanding, loving individual can turn on you if they do not fully understand the various reasons for your actions. Needless to say, it is a bit more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity, than it is to present oneself as a parent.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe in the pragmatic use of atheism to cause certain behaviors in rebellious portions of the populace, if that answers your question.

You're using the word "atheism" wrong. The term you're looking for is actually "machine guns". It's a common mistake.

At this point, you should just automatically get rep for your comments.

 

[Kharakov]

"Either God can communicate clearly and all Christians and Jews and Muslims should be on the same page -OR-"

Right. Parents communicate clearly and their children are all on the same page all the time. It's amazing that this is back at babies being able to understand concepts.

False equivocation. Parents are not godlike, therefore the parent-baby communication barrier is not evidence that there is a god that suffers the same limitations of communication with a relatively simple-minded audience.

Ehh? I'm talking about the behaviors of people in general, highlighting the immature behaviors and drawing a correlation between immature adult behaviors of some of the religious with... whatever. anyways... I want more coffee.

 

[Atheos]

The psychology of communicating with a young mind is complicated. Even the most receptive, understanding, loving individual can turn on you if they do not fully understand the various reasons for your actions. Needless to say, it is a bit more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity, than it is to present oneself as a parent.

The quote mechanism is getting a bit overwhelmed with the complexities of previously quoted material, so I snipped the portion of your response I'd like to address for brevity.

The problem that you keep avoiding addressing is that "god" is represented as being omnipotent. If your reply assumes a god that is not omnipotent god then please say so and we won't continue talking past each other.

But if you do believe an omnipotent god would face any challenge at all overcoming every psychological, language, cultural and educational barrier to effective communication and/or revealing itself as a deity then I'd like at least some theoretical mechanism as to how this challenge would present itself to such a being. Otherwise the entire idea that such a being would encounter any difficulty at all in accomplishing whatever it wants to accomplish is absurd.

 

[Kharakov]

The psychology of communicating with a young mind is complicated. Even the most receptive, understanding, loving individual can turn on you if they do not fully understand the various reasons for your actions. Needless to say, it is a bit more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity, than it is to present oneself as a parent.

<snip>
The problem that you keep avoiding addressing is that "god" is represented as being omnipotent.

By theists who don't engage in critical thinking, and by atheists who don't engage in critical thinking. Keep in mind these are the atheists who decide God doesn't exist because theists who haven't engaged in critical thinking have said things about God which are not precisely true.

As far as I can tell, others have brought omnipotence to the table, I did not.

Show

Being able to pick up an ant and move it somewhere else is power- but it is a disruptive power. To use one's power willy nilly to satisfy the urges of beings who do not consider the impact on the whole system can damage or destroy the relationships within the system.

So stupid silly prayers will go unanswered, unless the prayers are for something that will benefit all while not disrupting the system, or if it does disrupt the system, will cause something better in the future. There are various ideas that have been found to work psychologically and physically, and at some point in the future, an additional injection of energy into the universe or portions of the system may be pragmatic, but if it will disrupt the system, it will not be done.

Small talk? Don't worry, every single one of your errant thoughts gets equal devotion when compared to the various issues that exist in the world today. You feel lonely. You hurt. You stubbed your toe. You have a genetic disorder. You want this fixed. You want that fixed. Why aren't you rich at the expense of others? Why does someone have to suffer? Why don't you work on the problems that impact me first, so I can have fun? Why don't you take care of the problems that impact others first, so I can feel noble? Why is there cancer? Why don't you personally stop every evil act? Why do my personal desires that conflict with those of others sometimes take precedent over the desires of others? Why do their desires (and power to satisfy them) sometimes take precedent over mine?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A great musician teacher can easily explain Bach. A great engineering teacher can easily explain structural interactions in steel reinforced concrete. A great physics can easily explain the finer concepts of physics. We go through life and sometimes we bump into people that are great at explaining difficult concepts in a manner accessible to us newbs or amateurs in that subject.

If they can do that, what is stopping god from communicating? 1 planet, 1000s of gods. Enoch, we have a problem.

 

[Rhea]

Needless to say, it is a bit more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity, than it is to present oneself as a parent.

Why? I would submit that the opposite is true.
But go ahead. Tell me WHY it is difficult for a deity to reveal itself. Start by defining deity if it helps (hint: that's a trick question, it certainly will help)

<snip>
The problem that you keep avoiding addressing is that "god" is represented as being omnipotent.

By theists who don't engage in critical thinking, and by atheists who don't engage in critical thinking. Keep in mind these are the atheists who decide God doesn't exist because theists who haven't engaged in critical thinking have said things about God which are not precisely true.

As far as I can tell, others have brought omnipotence to the table, I did not.

So atheists can easily disprove any deity that any human deigns to try to describe.
And you say we can't disprove yours because you haven't described it.
Very human trick, eh?

So go ahead and describe the thing that you insist is real and exists but have not described but expect us to divine by critical thinking. G'head, put on your critical thinking cap and describe your deity.

This is getting stupid with you quipping back over and over again that it's not _your_ god but never offering what your god is for the discussion. Getting really stupid.

But you know it's also typical of all the other theists who do not display critical thought. Whenever one examines the things they describe and shows those things to be ridiculous, the theists retreat to no longer describing anything and claiming this leaves them in the right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keep in mind these are the atheists who decide God doesn't exist because theists who haven't engaged in critical thinking have said things about God which are not precisely true.
As far as I can tell, others have brought omnipotence to the table, I did not.

So go ahead and describe the thing that you insist is real and exists but have not described but expect us to divine by critical thinking.

That's not Kharrie's style. He'd rather insist that all discussions of god hew to his view, even if you're very specific in your OP about the views you're trying to think critically about. And when you don't, he gets to talk down at you for your failure.
He's a lot like Syed in that respect.

 

[Atheos]

<snip>
The problem that you keep avoiding addressing is that "god" is represented as being omnipotent.

By theists who don't engage in critical thinking, and by atheists who don't engage in critical thinking. Keep in mind these are the atheists who decide God doesn't exist because theists who haven't engaged in critical thinking have said things about God which are not precisely true.

As far as I can tell, others have brought omnipotence to the table, I did not.

Show

Being able to pick up an ant and move it somewhere else is power- but it is a disruptive power. To use one's power willy nilly to satisfy the urges of beings who do not consider the impact on the whole system can damage or destroy the relationships within the system.

So stupid silly prayers will go unanswered, unless the prayers are for something that will benefit all while not disrupting the system, or if it does disrupt the system, will cause something better in the future. There are various ideas that have been found to work psychologically and physically, and at some point in the future, an additional injection of energy into the universe or portions of the system may be pragmatic, but if it will disrupt the system, it will not be done.

Small talk? Don't worry, every single one of your errant thoughts gets equal devotion when compared to the various issues that exist in the world today. You feel lonely. You hurt. You stubbed your toe. You have a genetic disorder. You want this fixed. You want that fixed. Why aren't you rich at the expense of others? Why does someone have to suffer? Why don't you work on the problems that impact me first, so I can have fun? Why don't you take care of the problems that impact others first, so I can feel noble? Why is there cancer? Why don't you personally stop every evil act? Why do my personal desires that conflict with those of others sometimes take precedent over the desires of others? Why do their desires (and power to satisfy them) sometimes take precedent over mine?

I clearly asked you to state whether or not you are advocating for an omnipotent god, in which case we could stop talking past each other. So I'll ask again: Are we talking about an omnipotent god or not? If your answer is no then I have no argument. A non-omnipotent god would be completely consistent with the arguments you have presented.

 

[Kharakov]

No. As far as I can tell, others have brought omnipotence to the table.

 

[bilby]

No. As far as I can tell, others have brought omnipotence to the table.

OK, so are you saying that you believe there is an entity called God, that is limited in His power?

If so, what do you believe his powers are? What qualifies him as a God, rather than just another form of life?

How did you come to know about Him, and to know His limitations?

 

[Kharakov]

Why? I would submit that the opposite is true.
But go ahead. Tell me WHY it is difficult for a deity to reveal itself. Start by defining deity if it helps (hint: that's a trick question, it certainly will help)

It's not difficult for God to reveal God's existence. I didn't say difficult anyway, I said:

The psychology of communicating with a young mind is complicated. Even the most receptive, understanding, loving individual can turn on you if they do not fully understand the various reasons for your actions. Needless to say, it is a bit more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity, than it is to present oneself as a parent.

Basically, there are various psychological reasons to not reveal your existence to young minds when they are not yet ready.

And you say we can't disprove yours because you haven't described it.

I'd like to see the quote. I don't recall saying what you claim I said.

So go ahead and describe the thing that you insist is real and exists but have not described but expect us to divine by critical thinking.

Atheists who decide God does not exist because a theist has made false claims about God aren't really thinking things through.

If I make false claims about you, does that mean you don't exist when the claims are shown to be false?

This is getting stupid with you quipping back over and over again that it's not _your_ god but never offering what your god is for the discussion.

I'm pretty sure I did not say "it's not my God" in this thread. Got a quote?

You want to know the truth, pretty sure my God is women. They are so awesome. Except for you. You're definitely not my God. The order of statements may make it appear that I said you are not awesome, which I definitely did not say, although I did not change the order of my statements.

 

[bigfield]

The psychology of communicating with a young mind is complicated. Even the most receptive, understanding, loving individual can turn on you if they do not fully understand the various reasons for your actions.

That's a problem for parents, but you haven't yet explained how it is relevant to a deity.

Needless to say, it is a bit more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity, than it is to present oneself as a parent.

How did you come to that conclusion?

False equivocation. Parents are not godlike, therefore the parent-baby communication barrier is not evidence that there is a god that suffers the same limitations of communication with a relatively simple-minded audience.

Ehh? I'm talking about the behaviors of people in general, highlighting the immature behaviors and drawing a correlation between immature adult behaviors of some of the religious with... whatever. anyways... I want more coffee.

You described a limitation in human's ability to understand communication from a deity by comparing them to infants failing to understand their parents. The reason why infants cannot understand their parents is because parents lack the means to make the infant understand. Therefore, implicit in your comparison is the argument that humans cannot understand a deity because the deity lacks the means to make itself understood.

If on the other hand, the deity is capable of making itself understood but purposefully obscures it's communication (or does not communicate at all) then there is no comparison to be made with parents and their infants. This is because parents do not deliberately obfuscate their otherwise clear communication. Using your own example, there is no possible way a parent could communicate Einstein's field equations in a way that an infant could understand.

 

[bigfield]

It's not difficult for God to reveal God's existence. I didn't say difficult anyway, I said:

The psychology of communicating with a young mind is complicated. Even the most receptive, understanding, loving individual can turn on you if they do not fully understand the various reasons for your actions. Needless to say, it is a bit more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity, than it is to present oneself as a parent.

Basically, there are various psychological reasons to not reveal your existence to young minds when they are not yet ready.

You claim that a deity may not reveal itself to a human because the human might 'turn on' it due to failure to understand. The implication is that the deity is either unable or unwilling to predict or control the human's reaction, or to overcome this lack of understanding. This is a limitation in its abilities. How did you establish the existence of this limitation?

Also, how did you establish that it is more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity than it is to present oneself as a parent? How are you measuring complexity in this context?

 

[Kharakov]

No. As far as I can tell, others have brought omnipotence to the table.

OK, so are you saying that you believe there is an entity called God, that is limited in its power?

I am not an entity called human. Sounds quite strange, doesn't it?
And yes. God cannot stop following natural law and have me feel comfortable at the same time. I need structure in my life to feel comfortable. God can do things if God wants, but I think I need things to be natural at this point in my life. Natural order comforts me.

If so, what do you believe its powers are? What qualifies it as a God, rather than just another form of life?

I don't know what its powers are. I assume that it can increase the energy in the natural system if need be, but not so much that the ecosystem will be disrupted.

What qualifies it as a God? I don't know, I need to go look outside. Something crazy is going on out there.

How did you come to know about it, and to know its limitations?

I assume pretty much the standard way, although maybe it's different for different people.

 

[bilby]

OK, so are you saying that you believe there is an entity called God, that is limited in its power?

I am not an entity called human.

No. You are an entity called Kharakov.

Sounds quite strange, doesn't it?

only if you confuse a name with a description

And yes. God cannot stop following natural law and have me feel comfortable at the same time.

So your comfort is important to God?

Presumably more so than the comfort (or even survival) of children in sub-Saharan Africa.

I need structure in my life to feel comfortable. God can do things if God wants, but I think I need things to be natural at this point in my life. Natural order comforts me.

So how come it is all about you? What makes you so special?

If so, what do you believe its powers are? What qualifies it as a God, rather than just another form of life?

I don't know what its powers are. I assume that it can increase the energy in the natural system if need be, but not so much that the ecosystem will be disrupted.

What qualifies it as a God? I don't know, I need to go look outside. Something crazy is going on out there.

How did you come to know about it, and to know its limitations?

I assume pretty much the standard way, although maybe it's different for different people.

So you don't know shit about God, but you presume to tell us nonetheless. Brilliant.

 

[Rhea]

It's not difficult for God to reveal God's existence. I didn't say difficult anyway, I said:

The psychology of communicating with a young mind is complicated. Even the most receptive, understanding, loving individual can turn on you if they do not fully understand the various reasons for your actions. Needless to say, it is a bit more complicated to reveal oneself as a deity, than it is to present oneself as a parent.

I disagree with this. I have a 12yo daughter - I can succeed in communicating despite her hormonal roller coaster. I had a toddler who was a biter - I succeeded in getting him to understand why he had to stop. Your god is stupid if it is less capable than typical parents.

And you say we can't disprove yours because you haven't described it.

I'd like to see the quote. I don't recall saying what you claim I said.

There is no quote. You need to make one.
What god are you describing? What are its characteristics, it's nature?
Until you describe your invisible pink elephant, there's not discussion, there is nothing to tyalk about. You are just talking to yourself here.


I started a thread based on a SPECIFIC CONVERSATION by people who believe in the god Yahweh.
Your comments are off topic and irrelevant until you describe which god you are talking about.
This thread is about a god that people have described and defined in a book called the bible.
Either talk about that or describe what on earth you're talking about. Absent that description, you're just a toddler throwing poo on an adult party.

I have no objection to discussing my reaction to your description of your god, but it's just stupid to play some dumb 20-questions game trying to figure out which god you're bringing to the discussion. If you want to bring a different god to the discussion DESCRIBE IT or just go away and start your own thread in "humor" or something, okay?

So go ahead and describe the thing that you insist is real and exists but have not described but expect us to divine by critical thinking.

Atheists who decide God does not exist because a theist has made false claims about God aren't really thinking things through.

This is just stupid since I've asked you to describe the true claims about your god so we can think them through and you respond with more stupid non-information. I'm tired of your game, it's dumb. Do you want to discuss or not?

If I make false claims about you, does that mean you don't exist when the claims are shown to be false?

This is getting stupid with you quipping back over and over again that it's not _your_ god but never offering what your god is for the discussion.

I'm pretty sure I did not say "it's not my God" in this thread. Got a quote?

You want to know the truth, pretty sure my God is women. They are so awesome. Except for you. You're definitely not my God. The order of statements may make it appear that I said you are not awesome, which I definitely did not say, although I did not change the order of my statements.

You should go start your own thread so it can have a coherent subject.
For the record, I am awesome. I have superpowers. I create and sustain life itself. I am woman. I am a god.