God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[Rhea]

What, pray tell, does this have to do with God?

It's outlined in the OP. It's a thing that thousands of humans who surround me believe.

 

[Kharakov]

What, pray tell, does this have to do with God?

It's outlined in the OP. It's a thing that thousands of humans who surround me believe.

What, are you in some type of uneducated zombie apocalypse or something? Maybe the people around you are actually zombies, and any time someone engages in a critical mass of critical thinking the atheist and theist bible zombies eat their brains.

You better never start to think about whether or not the bible contains the absolute truth about God. I mean, ohh no, my gay friend all the sudden turned into a pillar of salt! AAAHHH, bible god rampage!!! run11@$!$!

Anyway, if you ever realize that a few people may have fucked up ideas about God and the bible, the zombies might sense that your brain has achieved critical mass of critical thinking and try to eat your brain. Be very cautious! Do not think another thought until you have made it out of the bible zombie hordes!

 

[Sheshbazzar]

this god can do nothing to manipulate the physical world in any way. It cannot cause lights to appear in the sky and flash words to us to convey messages we can read.

It cannot make sounds in our ears that would sound like someone talking to us.

.... it cannot heal sick people, cause famines, stop horrific storms, transform water into wine or levitate objects off the ground. It cannot impregnate a virgin.
.... It cannot communicate with us any more than we can communicate with a bacteria.

But as per Numbers 22:27-30, is at will able to compel the dumb ass to talk with the voice of a man.

Pray tell now. Who is your god which you claim to see and to hear in the way dumb ass?

 

[Rhea]

It's outlined in the OP. It's a thing that thousands of humans who surround me believe.

What, are you in some type of uneducated zombie apocalypse or something?

You are astute.
Bear in mind, these are the people who voted 3:1 to shut down the public library because it is a liberal indoctrination center that promotes witchcraft, homosexuality, porn and Islam. These are people who believe the approval of a liquor license should hinge on the professed religion of the owner (these are the people who, ridiculously, ignorantly fear that the evil drinking establishment might be owned by Muslims, WTF?) These are the people who think Obama really is a Kenyan, and that the Government needs to keep it's filthy paws off their medicare.

And I'm talking about them in this thread, that is the topic. You keep steering it toward yourself and your personal beliefs which no one is privy to anyway, and that is not making any sense in the context. But the thread is not actually about you at all.

 

[bigfield]

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

It's relevant with anyone you communicate with who doesn't possess a certain level of emotional intelligence (this includes adults). I've noticed that certain individuals react emotionally to certain topics for various reasons. So to discuss these topics rationally with them, they must first be made aware of their emotional over-reactions. Then they need a period of time to internalize their awareness of their emotional reactions so that they can separate their rational thought process from the emotional morass it is currently in.

The only evidence you have for this is interactions between humans. Why can't a deity overcome these limitations?

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?

Many sociological and psychological reasons. Enough for another whole thread, one which will become immensely cluttered. I assume that some of the psychological reasons will spill out into the (uncreated) thread fairly quickly, unless people remain aware that these behaviors are being watched for.

That's an unnecessarily vague response.

So far the psychologcal reasons you've cited describe interactions between humans. What evidence do you have that any of these psychological reasons are also problems for a deity?

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 analogy was the first one that came to mind when I reread the OP. I could have said "Can people without adequate education and experience understand Einstein's field equations?" but this would have left out some information which may or may not be appropriate for all audiences.

Why can't a deity overcome a human's lack of experience and education for the purpose of communicating an idea?

 

[Kharakov]

And I'm talking about them in this thread, that is the topic.

So the topic is people who claim things about God that are not true, it is not that God is too great to communicate with humans? It would be easier if you stated the topic in the title of the thread, instead of a different topic. In fact, the question in the OP sure looks like a question about God, not some strawman of God (like OT "God") or a group of people who have inaccurate beliefs about God.

Show

You framed the original question and the title of the thread so that it is about God, not some sect's incorrect beliefs about God, and not people who have incorrect beliefs about God.

If I ask a question about Rhea, and then say "I meant the version of Rhea that I was attacking, not Rhea", how do you think it looks to others?

In the case of God, no harm, no foul. You aren't going to hurt God. The point being that reinforcement of stupid beliefs and stupid ways of thinking is good for comedy, but not good for the development of accurate world views. From the way you've been talking about how this thread is not about God, and the emotional way you've posted, it sure looks like your world view is not as accurate as it could be.

What does it indicate to me when someone posts a thread titled with what appears to be an emotionally charged comment about God, then asks a question about their emotionally charged comment about God, then claims that the thread is not about God but instead the thread is about a strawman of God, and then switches to the thread being about a group of people who believe in the strawman of God, instead of the strawman of God?

All I see is you changing positions constantly. Now, I could be wrong, but my firm belief is that your emotions have gotten away from you and you are not engaging in rational discourse. In fact, I think when you wrote out the OP, you were already predominately being moved by emotions about the strawman of God that you appear to have a problem with.

Just so you know my views on the matter- the title of the thread, and the original question are framed in such a way that you speak of the actual God, not the strawman of God that exists for adult entertainment purposes. Of course, you may be an adult who knows God exists, and enjoys attacking the strawman, without bringing up the fact that you are attacking the strawman. If I'm fucking with your RP, please let me know. I'm not into RP about God.

 

[Kharakov]

The only evidence you have for this is interactions between humans.

There is plenty of evidence that some humans have emotional responses to certain situations involving imaginary traits of other beings. This goes a bit further: humans have emotional responses to beings they don't even believe are real (watch a movie).

Why can't a deity overcome these limitations?

I didn't say a deity cannot. One of the strategies for overcoming these limitations is making people aware that their over-reactions are limitations that they must work with you to overcome.

So far the psychologcal reasons you've cited describe interactions between humans. What evidence do you have that any of these psychological reasons are also problems for a deity?

When you're working with someone or care for someone, their psychological problems have an impact upon you.

Why can't a deity overcome a human's lack of experience and education for the purpose of communicating an idea?

I never said a deity cannot overcome a human's lack of experience or education. However, it should be obvious by now that experience is acquired over time, and education requires experience.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In Kings and Chronicles, Solomon prays for wisdom and God grants Solomon that. Why does not grant all men and women wisdom and moral wisdom at that from their birth? Note here, God speaks sensibly to Solomon. Where did this God disappear to? Or is this just an oriental tall tale with not an iota of truth in a word of it?

2 Chronicles 10-12

10 Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great?

11 And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king:

12 Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.

 

[Rhea]

And I'm talking about them in this thread, that is the topic.

So the topic is people who claim things about God that are not true, it is not that God is too great to communicate with humans? It would be easier if you stated the topic in the title of the thread, instead of a different topic. In fact, the question in the OP sure looks like a question about God, not some strawman of God (like OT "God") or a group of people who have inaccurate beliefs about God.

You are not qualified to say what is "true" or "not true" about "god" until you define your god. You've refused, so your claim that these people are wrong is just pissing in the wind.

You framed the original question and the title of the thread so that it is about God, not some sect's incorrect beliefs about God, and not people who have incorrect beliefs about God.

What makes you think your sect is right and their sect is wrong?

LOL. Ironically, some sort of "communication" from a god that tells you so? Voices in your head? Goatherder's book?
You never say, so it's just a mockery, and quite funny in an 'I write poetry that makes no sense and I call it sublime' kind of way.

If I ask a question about Rhea, and then say "I meant the version of Rhea that I was attacking, not Rhea", how do you think it looks to others?

Depends on whether people are claiming I wrote somethign down for them.
But if someone else comes along and says they know Rhea and then proceeds to fail to produce a single description of her - how does that look?

It's funny. I've asked to explicitly several times to say what your god _is_ not take pots shots telling other people they have claimed something that you say _is_not_. But you continue to fail to say what you think the god _is_ and continue to just claim, "that bit is not."

I'll tell you how it looks; it looks like a snake-oil salesman. And it's hilariously transparent.

In the case of God, no harm, no foul. You aren't going to hurt God. The point being that reinforcement of stupid beliefs and stupid ways of thinking is good for comedy, but not good for the development of accurate world views.

Yah, no kidding sherlock. reinforcement of stupid beliefs about gods-that-cannot-be-described is definitely not good for development of world views. It's snake oil.

Describe your god and we can talk. Until then, you sound a lot like a charleton mumbo jumbo mystic wannabe.

All I see is you changing positions constantly. Now, I could be wrong, but my firm belief is that your emotions have gotten away from you and you are not engaging in rational discourse.

LOL, no my position does not change a bit. and I am definitely not emotional even a little. You've got this pegged all wrong and it is funny watching you peg it all wrong. I'm laughing at them. They have foolish beliefs that are not even internally consistent. It's goofy and stupid.

In fact, I think when you wrote out the OP, you were already predominately being moved by emotions about the strawman of God that you appear to have a problem with.

I've got no problems with gods. They don't exist.
People's beliefs in them affect me, though. And sometimes it's just humor at how ridiculous those beliefs are.

Just so you know my views on the matter- the title of the thread, and the original question are framed in such a way that you speak of the actual God, not the strawman of God that exists for adult entertainment purposes. Of course, you may be an adult who knows God exists, and enjoys attacking the strawman, without bringing up the fact that you are attacking the strawman. If I'm fucking with your RP, please let me know. I'm not into RP about God.

There is no actual god. There is only stories people make up and it is fun to poke holes in their silliness.

 

[Kharakov]

You are not qualified to say what is "true" or "not true" about "god" until you define your god.

That statement reminds me of Syed. I've said plenty in this thread that should teach you about God. Supreme being is a good enough definition for God, but that's a sort of nebulous concept.

What makes you think your sect is right and their sect is wrong?

What makes you think I belong to a sect, or a particular religion? You don't have to be in a particular religion to know God.

Ironically, some sort of "communication" from a god that tells you so?

Orchestrated events in my life, communications, etc..

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Are you all sure 'stupid' isn't the word you want instead of 'great'. As in 'God's too stupid to communicate clearly with humans'.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Rhea]

That statement reminds me of Syed. I've said plenty in this thread that should teach you about God. Supreme being is a good enough definition for God, but that's a sort of nebulous concept.

Nah, you haven't really said anything. It appears that you like little guessing games and gotcha games and hide and seek. I'm not into that game. I'm having an actual discussion with people who answer questions, not dodge them and pretend to be clever.

It's okay of you want to claim your god is the subject of discussion and then refuse to reveal what you think your god looks like. But it won't be on topic. And I will quickly cease to care about the thing that you won't describe but want to claim is the subject of the conversation.

Bla blah blah. It's just as ridiculous as the funny definitions given by the [people described in the OP. No different.

What makes you think I belong to a sect, or a particular religion?

You could just say instead of the silly peekaboo game. It's just all in your head. There's no "there" there.

Orchestrated events in my life, communications, etc..

Just the same thing that convinces those people in the OP. See? Same religion, different woo. Maybe. If we can guess. Blah blah blah.

 

[bigfield]

The only evidence you have for this is interactions between humans.

There is plenty of evidence that some humans have emotional responses to certain situations involving imaginary traits of other beings. This goes a bit further: humans have emotional responses to beings they don't even believe are real (watch a movie).

I stand corrected: the only evidence you apparently have is with respect to humans, albeit not necessarily involved humans interacting with each other. However you also have not presented any evidence of interactions between humans and deities. What evidence do you have?

Why can't a deity overcome these limitations?

I didn't say a deity cannot.

I take that to mean that you are claiming that the deity can, in fact, overcome those limitations.

One of the strategies for overcoming these limitations is making people aware that their over-reactions are limitations that they must work with you to overcome.

Is that a strategy that a deity resorts to? If so then the deity is not overcoming those limitations; it is using strategies available to ordinary humans.

Perhaps you didn't understand my question, so let me rephrase: Why can't a deity make it so that there are no obstacles to communication at all, including but not limited emotional difficulties?

So far the psychologcal reasons you've cited describe interactions between humans. What evidence do you have that any of these psychological reasons are also problems for a deity?

When you're working with someone or care for someone, their psychological problems have an impact upon you.

That is true because I am a human. A human's reactions or feelings cannot be assumed to be comparable to a deity's, at least not without evidence. What evidence do you have that a human's thought processes are comparable to a deity's?

Why can't a deity overcome a human's lack of experience and education for the purpose of communicating an idea?

I never said a deity cannot overcome a human's lack of experience or education. However, it should be obvious by now that experience is acquired over time, and education requires experience.

So a deity is not overcoming anything; it is constrained just as humans are constrained with regards to interpersonal exchanges.

Not exactly a 'supreme being'.

So far your hypothetical deity appears to have the following characteristics:
1. It cannot communicate some ideas to people who lack an unspecified level of education or experience.
2. It cannot communicate some ideas to people who react with certain unspecified emotions.
3. It cannot overcome those limitations: it must wait until the person has achieved more education, experience or calmness using only means that are also available to humans in the absence of a deity.
4. Can be described as a 'supreme being'.

What evidence do you have? The evidence you described to Rhea -- "Orchestrated events in my life, communications, etc." -- probably has other more reasonable explanations. For example, you are probably simply mistaken. Humans are notorious for finding patterns in random distributions, self-centred biases, misinterpreting their internal monologue, and various other mistakes of perception.

It is very convenient that your hypothetical deity is extremely limited in its ability to communicate with humans, allowing you to believe your personal experiences with the deity, but also explaining why the rest of us have absolutely zero evidence available, and why other theists describe god differently than you do.

You would not be the first person to claim that you have had communications with a deity but that someone else has not had communications from god because they somehow aren't ready, or they have received communication but unlike yourself lacked the ability to recognise it or comprehend it.

 

[Kharakov]

In the case that you don't want to talk about God, it would be intelligent if you didn't make claims or ask questions about God.

There is only one God. If you want a physics metaphor, there is only one energy that can cause many different things.

Whatever though. What I've said already should indicate things to you about God. God is not some tri-omni asshole who is out to get those who don't toe the line. God is patient and kind and does the best that God can to raise us up into happy, kind individuals. Sometimes our reactions (which some of us deny) are detrimental towards a good relationship with God, and in fact some of us just aren't ready for one.

Wild animals will not approach a being they perceive as more powerful than them, and are frightened by it. A certain level of intelligence is required to understand that a being is not going to use you for evil purposes. How more so is a greedy human frightened of a being that can read their very thoughts? So it is easier for those with animal like fear of a greater being not to be aware of them. It's not like someone who has negative emotional reactions to the idea of God would feel comfortable if God actually revealed God's existence to them. It may be more humane to allow you to continue to disbelieve, live your natural life, and pass away.

The fact that you've changed your position from talking about God, to talking about OT God, to talking about theists who believe in OT God, then to attacks on my thoughtful statements indicates to me that you lack the mental stability to begin a relationship with God. Of course, I could be pulling your leg.

 

[bigfield]

There is only one God. If you want a physics metaphor, there is only one energy that can cause many different things.

How do you know that?

Whatever though. What I've said already should indicate things to you about God. God is not some tri-omni asshole who is out to get those who don't toe the line. God is patient and kind and does the best that God can to raise us up into happy, kind individuals. Sometimes our reactions (which some of us deny) are detrimental towards a good relationship with God, and in fact some of us just aren't ready for one.

Wild animals will not approach a being they perceive as more powerful than them, and are frightened by it. A certain level of intelligence is required to understand that a being is not going to use you for evil purposes. How more so is a greedy human frightened of a being that can read their very thoughts? So it is easier for those with animal like fear of a greater being not to be aware of them. It's not like someone who has negative emotional reactions to the idea of God would feel comfortable if God actually revealed God's existence to them. It may be more humane to allow you to continue to disbelieve, live your natural life, and pass away.

The fact that you've changed your position from talking about God, to talking about OT God, to talking about theists who believe in OT God, then to attacks on my thoughtful statements indicates to me that you lack the mental stability to begin a relationship with God. Of course, I could be pulling your leg.

Called it:

You would not be the first person to claim that you have had communications with a deity but that someone else has not had communications from god because they somehow aren't ready, or they have received communication but unlike yourself lacked the ability to recognise it or comprehend it.

The deity has revealed itself to you, but not to us because we lack the psychological capacity required to handle such a revelation.

 

[Kharakov]

However you also have not presented any evidence of interactions between humans and deities.

Yeah. That's something God will present to you when you're ready. Like I said, there are very real reasons for God's existence to be hidden from you until you are ready. Do you really want to know that a being that knows your every inner thought exists? I think not. You are not prepared, so God will hide God's existence from you.

 

[Kharakov]

The deity has revealed itself to you, but not to us because we lack the psychological capacity required to handle such a revelation.

Maybe God thinks you're an asshole, and you're on the ignore list.

Or you're not telling the truth and you know God. Or you actually cannot handle a relationship with someone who knows your every inner thought, which would be a sad thing.

 

[bigfield]

However you also have not presented any evidence of interactions between humans and deities.

Yeah. That's something God will present to you when you're ready. Like I said, there are very real reasons for God's existence to be hidden from you until you are ready. Do you really want to know that a being that knows your every inner thought exists? I think not. You are not prepared, so God will hide God's existence from you.

This deity only reveals itself to those who want to believe in its existence.

How do you differentiate your deity from fantasy?

- - - Updated - - -

The deity has revealed itself to you, but not to us because we lack the psychological capacity required to handle such a revelation.

Maybe God thinks you're an asshole, and you're on the ignore list.

God's a big fucking crybaby, then.

Or you're not telling the truth and you know God. Or you actually cannot handle a relationship with someone who knows your every inner thought, which would be a sad thing.

Or you're simply mistaken about the deity's existence.

Either way, you cannot expect a reasonable person to treat your claims as credible. ETA: Not without something a little better than your say-so.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Anything that is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. A magic god that has no evidence for its existence, or a billion gods without evidence. Invisible pink unicorns, or Scientology's body thetans.

 

[Rhea]

In the case that you don't want to talk about God, it would be intelligent if you didn't make claims or ask questions about God.

On the contrary - there are many gods, all of them invented by humans. You have presented nothing to make an intelligent person understand how you came to believe that only you know the definition of a god(dess)(es).

There is only one God. If you want a physics metaphor, there is only one energy that can cause many different things.

My first reaction is just write [citation needed]
My second reaction is to continue to be curious about how you came to this belief.
Not just what do you know, but how do you know things.
I know things by observation, experimentation and falsification.
How do you decide, "that's something I know"?
(knowing you won't answer this, but it's the obvious next step in a normal conversation)

God is not some tri-omni asshole who is out to get those who don't toe the line. God is patient and kind and does the best that God can to raise us up into happy, kind individuals.

Is your god doing the best it can to communicate its existence? And if this (fractured religions, "false" (according to you) sects, atheism) is the "best it can do" in establishing itself as real, well, um, how does it get to be called "deity"?

What _is_ a deity to you? (knowing you won't answer this, but it's the obvious next step in a normal conversation)

Sometimes our reactions (which some of us deny) are detrimental towards a good relationship with God, and in fact some of us just aren't ready for one.

Wild animals will not approach a being they perceive as more powerful than them, and are frightened by it. A certain level of intelligence is required to understand that a being is not going to use you for evil purposes. How more so is a greedy human frightened of a being that can read their very thoughts? So it is easier for those with animal like fear of a greater being not to be aware of them. It's not like someone who has negative emotional reactions to the idea of God would feel comfortable if God actually revealed God's existence to them. It may be more humane to allow you to continue to disbelieve, live your natural life, and pass away.

I'm not frightened by powerful things. I think black holes are fascinating, lovely, curious and interesting, for example.
But I don't magically believe something to be true without any reason to believe it. (any god would know that, btw) So a simple bit of evidence would be all it takes. It's cute when theists claim I must be an atheist because I hate or fear some thing that I am not convinced exists. Like being scared of invisible pink unicorns in teh garage - boo!


Seriously, are you scared of things that you don't think are there?

The fact that you've changed your position from talking about God, to talking about OT God, to talking about theists who believe in OT God, then to attacks on my thoughtful statements indicates to me that you lack the mental stability to begin a relationship with God.

I haven't though. All gods are merely described by other humans. There are lots of other humans. Many of them talk about having a personal relationship with a god. And, LOL, you think only yours is true. But that doesn't mean I have changed my "position" in talking about various forms of gods that are talked about by various humans. It's you who have changed your position.

edited to add: Which of your comments is thoughtful? You seem to avoid answering direct questions and stray into topics that you refuse to fully describe and then admonish for people not agreeing when they ask what you mean.

Of course, I could be pulling your leg.

Why would you even say this?
"I'm having a conversation with you, but, haha, maybe I'm just makign fun of you instead. Oh and by the way, you're a jerk if you don't take me seriously"
What up with that?