|
|
Some people believe in a higher being - a force that has no human attributes, such as emotion or will.
Others believe in God - an all-powerful being with human qualities that wants mankind to do what is right, and is vengeful, forgiving, and loving all at the same time.
I want to see which one would be more logical to exsist. A higher being or God, because God often runs into trouble when it comes to the question of "How does God work? Why is he/she/it doing this?"
So.....
Higher being or God? Explain why you picked the one you did.
I'm a Christian and it's quite hard to understand what you're saying. Because I believe (or should I say is true) that God is the same as a higher being.
| Quote: | | an all-powerful being with human qualities that wants mankind to do what is right, and is vengeful, forgiving, and loving all at the same time. |
Your definition of God is rather not right in a Christian viewpoint. God is not a human, but Jesus is God in human form. So it's quite confusing with all these terms. But basically I'm for God.
| Quote: | I'm a Christian and it's quite hard to understand what you're saying. Because I believe (or should I say is true) that God is the same as a higher being.
Quote:
an all-powerful being with human qualities that wants mankind to do what is right, and is vengeful, forgiving, and loving all at the same time.
Your definition of God is rather not right in a Christian viewpoint. God is not a human, but Jesus is God in human form. So it's quite confusing with all these terms. But basically I'm for God. |
1) No, you should not say it's true because you have in no way supported why you believe in God (which is what I asked for, >_<)...
2) I didn't say that God was human. I said that he had HUMAN QUALITIES, meaning that he has emotions, will, and can think.
3) Not everyone believes that Jesus was God in human form. Some believe that Jesus was actually legitimatly God's son. Think of how Zues was Hercules' father (but not in the sense that God and Mary had sex).
4) When I say "higher being" I mean a being WITHOUT human quailities (with no emotion, will, knowledge, etc) and is more of a guiding force. I believe this is what most people believe a "higher being" is. I could very well be wrong, since it has never been fully explained to me, and if someone feels that this is an incorrect description, please correct me.
There is no universal definition of a higher being. We can assume some properties from the phrase though. 'Being' in the widest sense simply means something that exists. That is a profoundly unhelpful definition.
To be a 'being' in this sense, I would argue, requires some sort of self awareness. That in turn would imply some form of will or intentionality.
| Bikerman wrote: | There is no universal definition of a higher being. We can assume some properties from the phrase though. 'Being' in the widest sense simply means something that exists. That is a profoundly unhelpful definition.
To be a 'being' in this sense, I would argue, requires some sort of self awareness. That in turn would imply some form of will or intentionality. |
I think a better term would be a guiding force? But "guiding" would also imply some sort of will woudln't it? So what would be the best thing to describe a force that has no will, emotion, etc?
| laurenrox wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | There is no universal definition of a higher being. We can assume some properties from the phrase though. 'Being' in the widest sense simply means something that exists. That is a profoundly unhelpful definition.
To be a 'being' in this sense, I would argue, requires some sort of self awareness. That in turn would imply some form of will or intentionality. |
I think a better term would be a guiding force? But "guiding" would also imply some sort of will woudln't it? So what would be the best thing to describe a force that has no will, emotion, etc? |
Force seems a reasonable word..
we, humans, need sometimes something bigger than us to believe in to, and that figure can be called in thousands and millions of ways, as it already has all across the history of men, and not only with men, other creatures need a leader figure to follow in order to achive success, no matter how we call it,
the human being, by itself, along with the eye and mind, thinks and see, wich it chooses to see or think, that's why we preffer a neutral god, or higher being in our thought, b'cuz we hope he or she or it, will be much more fair for everyone in the world that he or she or it rules. And, if we believe it hard enough, he or she or it'll be even kindder with "us" individually speaking.
We also, as you said, believe that this higher being wants mankind to do what is right, most of times, what we think is right, or what the mayorities think is right, or what common sense made us learn within experience from the past, we prefer it vengeful, because we don't want a week leader, we want a strong one, but anyway mercyfull and loving; just because, we want that when all that power and anger is being pointed at us, he could be able to show mercy, and forgive us, for all our sins.
The existance of any of those, a higher being, or a character called GOD, it's irrelevant, it's just a name, in my opinion, for our innermost desires, fed by years of cult and prayers, beleifs and heretics. An alias for a way of thinking, and it better be a guy, because man it's stronger, or a goddess in matriarcal cultures, you name it, how do you want your god to be named? why is it, that you, can't be your own god? only because you'll not be able to judge yourlself properly?
That's just words, please don't be offended, I don't mean to, It's just the way I see things.
Greatings.
| Quote: | we, humans, need sometimes something bigger than us to believe in to, and that figure can be called in thousands and millions of ways, as it already has all across the history of men, and not only with men, other creatures need a leader figure to follow in order to achive success, no matter how we call it,
the human being, by itself, along with the eye and mind, thinks and see, wich it chooses to see or think, that's why we preffer a neutral god, or higher being in our thought, b'cuz we hope he or she or it, will be much more fair for everyone in the world that he or she or it rules. And, if we believe it hard enough, he or she or it'll be even kindder with "us" individually speaking.
We also, as you said, believe that this higher being wants mankind to do what is right, most of times, what we think is right, or what the mayorities think is right, or what common sense made us learn within experience from the past, we prefer it vengeful, because we don't want a week leader, we want a strong one, but anyway mercyfull and loving; just because, we want that when all that power and anger is being pointed at us, he could be able to show mercy, and forgive us, for all our sins.
The existance of any of those, a higher being, or a character called GOD, it's irrelevant, it's just a name, in my opinion, for our innermost desires, fed by years of cult and prayers, beleifs and heretics. An alias for a way of thinking, and it better be a guy, because man it's stronger, or a goddess in matriarcal cultures, you name it, how do you want your god to be named? why is it, that you, can't be your own god? only because you'll not be able to judge yourlself properly?
That's just words, please don't be offended, I don't mean to, It's just the way I see things.
Greatings. |
You're mixing your words. You're giving examples as to why you think people just made up God, but you're still saying that he/she/it exsists?
Because man was created in the image of God, we can assume that God is similar to humans ... thus God exists in a human-like form, but has all the powers and more of this so called "higher being."
| laurenrox wrote: | | Quote: | we, humans, need sometimes something bigger than us to believe in to, and that figure can be called in thousands and millions of ways, as it already has all across the history of men, and not only with men, other creatures need a leader figure to follow in order to achive success, no matter how we call it,
the human being, by itself, along with the eye and mind, thinks and see, wich it chooses to see or think, that's why we preffer a neutral god, or higher being in our thought, b'cuz we hope he or she or it, will be much more fair for everyone in the world that he or she or it rules. And, if we believe it hard enough, he or she or it'll be even kindder with "us" individually speaking.
We also, as you said, believe that this higher being wants mankind to do what is right, most of times, what we think is right, or what the mayorities think is right, or what common sense made us learn within experience from the past, we prefer it vengeful, because we don't want a week leader, we want a strong one, but anyway mercyfull and loving; just because, we want that when all that power and anger is being pointed at us, he could be able to show mercy, and forgive us, for all our sins.
The existance of any of those, a higher being, or a character called GOD, it's irrelevant, it's just a name, in my opinion, for our innermost desires, fed by years of cult and prayers, beleifs and heretics. An alias for a way of thinking, and it better be a guy, because man it's stronger, or a goddess in matriarcal cultures, you name it, how do you want your god to be named? why is it, that you, can't be your own god? only because you'll not be able to judge yourlself properly?
That's just words, please don't be offended, I don't mean to, It's just the way I see things.
Greatings. |
You're mixing your words. You're giving examples as to why you think people just made up God, but you're still saying that he/she/it exsists? |
Me personaly, prefer the existance of a god, the matter of his existance is merely irrelevant, in the american country, before the colonies, ppl use to believe in the sun as a god, or the corn, or mother earth, or jaguars, and stuff like that, call them how ever you want, they had their own way of religion.
Then after, spanish guys came with a strange language, and made the locals believe in their god, because god was good, and the locals were barbarians, it also happens with the crusades, and other examples, but anyway that's not the subject in discussion.
And I tought I was perfectly clear when I wrote, that was MY WAY TO SEE STUFF, it's not an absolut truth. But anyway, me myself, I think this: It better be some sort of god or higher being somewhere that guide us to somewhere, because we (humans) are self destructive, and the only way we are going by now, is down and down and down, and I wonder when will come the oposite question. Is there anybody who don't believe in the devil?? because it's a normal state of things, every positive has a negative somewhere...
Greatings...
| laurenrox wrote: | Some people believe in a higher being - a force that has no human attributes, such as emotion or will.
Others believe in God - an all-powerful being with human qualities that wants mankind to do what is right, and is vengeful, forgiving, and loving all at the same time.
I want to see which one would be more logical to exsist. A higher being or God, because God often runs into trouble when it comes to the question of "How does God work? Why is he/she/it doing this?"
So.....
Higher being or God? Explain why you picked the one you did. |
I picked God because i believe in Islam because i believe in the Qur'an because the Qur'an has proved itself to me.
may God bless you.
| Quote: | I picked God because i believe in Islam because i believe in the Qur'an because the Qur'an has proved itself to me.
may God bless you. |
That doesn't tell me why you believe in God. In what way has the Qur'an proven itself to you? Have you ever questioned anything in it? If you try to solve the Bible or the Qur'ran logically and take the passages litterally, then most of what is said in either is illogical.
The higher being is being. It is all being. It is the totality of being, rising and falling simultaneously and existing in fullness and nothingness throughout eternity. Being eternal, that is its only characteristic. This is a very basic point in many eastern religions. We each are tiny, impermanent expressions of certain aspects of God, and everything one encounters in a day is holy. To walk around in this knowledge is to be free and know compassion.
A Higher Power or God.
I believe in both God, my creator and Father, and a Higher Power to which God is subject. God is perfect and loves us and wants the best for us. He has great knowledge and power. He understands the workings of things and uses that understanding with skill, for good. God is a scientist, no - The Scientist.
In the early 1700's a man named Leibniz wrote a book on Monadology. It is a theoretical work based on very little fact and unprovable, certainly in his day. It was pitched aside by "real" scientists and is rarely considered with any respect. It does, however, raise interesting questions and ideas.
A monad is an entity "without parts". The word actually means - one. It is what it is. It has no nucleus or shell or feet or gears or anything that might be considered a lesser part of itself - it just is - singular in it's existence. He believed them to be everywhere and to make up everything, even the 'emptiness' of space.
The idea may sound nuts. It put me in mind of Star Wars' midichlorians, something that can think, communicate and pervade the emptiness of space; be everywhere and no where. Yeah, Right!
But as I reflect on the connectedness of all things, maybe it's not so nuts. I don't mean monadology as described by Leibniz, but not far off. Physics seeks a unifying theory of the universe. It has moved far beyond the early understand of the atom. An atom not only has parts, they are relatively large in comparison to the quarks and leptons that make them up.
How much smaller can we go? What will we find when we get to the smallest thing in the universe? - intelligence perhaps. We have always looked out to space for life and answers. We may be searching in the wrong direction.
In the meantime I go on faith. God exists! and something else exists as well that makes it all work and holds it all together. There is a resonance to the world, a connection to all things that makes me believe in a 'Higher Power' as well as in God.
| Soulfire wrote: | | Because man was created in the image of God, we can assume that God is similar to humans ... thus God exists in a human-like form, but has all the powers and more of this so called "higher being." |
Image of God is very interesting terminology. Computers have images. The human mind sees images. But what if the Image of God is the Universe (image of God that we can see) and we were just created in it? We were created in the Universe/Image of God.
| Bikerman wrote: | There is no universal definition of a higher being. We can assume some properties from the phrase though. 'Being' in the widest sense simply means something that exists. That is a profoundly unhelpful definition.
To be a 'being' in this sense, I would argue, requires some sort of self awareness. That in turn would imply some form of will or intentionality. |
God is not self aware, so the fools would try to argue. What a load of crock!!!!
God is just an idiot, yes BM, your are correct.
| bluedragon wrote: | | Soulfire wrote: | | Because man was created in the image of God, we can assume that God is similar to humans ... thus God exists in a human-like form, but has all the powers and more of this so called "higher being." |
Image of God is very interesting terminology. Computers have images. The human mind sees images. But what if the Image of God is the Universe (image of God that we can see) and we were just created in it? We were created in the Universe/Image of God. |
The Mandlebrot Set is made up of an infinite number of little copies of Itself. Who would have thought that modern mathematics would confirm the existance of God?
| laurenrox wrote: |
That doesn't tell me why you believe in God. In what way has the Qur'an proven itself to you? Have you ever questioned anything in it? If you try to solve the Bible or the Qur'ran logically and take the passages litterally, then most of what is said in either is illogical. |
I have questioned the Qur'an many many times and debated with christians about it. I've never found a flaw in it.
The Qur'an is probably the only scripture that claims to be from God that also challenges you to disprove it by finding a flaw:
Glorious Qur'an [10:37]: This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than GOD. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.
Glorious Qur'an [4:82]: Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from other than GOD, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.
That's one of the reasons why i believe in it. Because i've never found a flaw. (note: that's just one).
may God bless you.
Oi, now that we have the problem of what exactally a force is solved (earlier referred to as a "higher being"), can we get back to explaining why you would think one would be more logical to exsist than the other?
If this higher power is without logic or emotion, then why would it have created anything, let alone mankind?
| laurenrox wrote: | | Oi, now that we have the problem of what exactally a force is solved (earlier referred to as a "higher being"), can we get back to explaining why you would think one would be more logical to exsist than the other? |
There is no need for an opinion on that question. The answer falls out of one of the fundamental rules of logic - parsimony.
Assume that, for whatever reason, we have come to the logical conclusion that something exists, but don't know yet whether it is a divine force or a personal being. All that remains is to choose between those two options.
On the one hand you have dumb, unintelligent, mindless force. On the other, you have an intelligent being with will and emotion. Both are potential solutions for that something that we know must exist.
Consider that, in essence, the being is the exact same as the force - in that it can do everything the force can do - except that it has these additional qualities of intelligence, will and emotion. It is the force, with the addition of a mind.
By parsimony, it is illogical to assume the existence of things that are not necessary to explain whatever it is you are trying to explain. If the mindless force can explain the something just as well as the "force with a mind", there is no logical reason to assume the mind.
Therefore, all things being equal, a mindless force is more logical than a being with will and emotion.
(And before someone inevitably objects that they don't need/want to use the law of parsimony, the answer is that you must - not in the sense that it's a "rule" that you must follow, but in the sense that even if you were to try not to use the rule, you would inevitably be using it anyway regardless. You simply can't avoid it.)
| silvermesh wrote: | | If this higher power is without logic or emotion, then why would it have created anything, let alone mankind? |
This is a loaded question that already assumes the answer.
Does this question make sense: "Why would gravity keep the planets in orbit around the sun, let alone keep people on the surface of the Earth?"
The question assumes that gravity has to have a motive to do what it does. It doesn't. It's just a dumb, mindless force that does what it does because it is what it is, and that's all it can do.
Perhaps I didn't rephrase it the right way. I didn't nessecarily want someone to explain which one is more logical, but the logical problems with each.
The problems with no god/force, the problems with a force, and the problems with a God.
God. ..."Higher being" reflects that it is something else that was created. God exists outside of our time/space. ...And has no creator. This distinction pretty much seperates the two very clearly, and I believe in God, not some sort of puppet-controlling "higher being"...
Indeed, if God is truly all consciousness unbound by time, then God knows all because God personally remembers being all of us and what we went through way back when (now) when God was us.
| laurenrox wrote: | Perhaps I didn't rephrase it the right way. I didn't nessecarily want someone to explain which one is more logical, but the logical problems with each.
The problems with no god/force, the problems with a force, and the problems with a God. |
Assuming that you have reason to believe that the assumptions that those things (personal being, divine force and "nothing") exist are logically equivalent (which you don't, but assume so for the moment), then the only one of them that has logical problems that the others don't is the personal being. That one suffers from the problem of evil, the sovereignty paradox, completeness issues, ethical and moral problems, etc. etc.
Both the divine force and the "nothing" concepts do not suffer from these problems. They arise due to the intelligence and awareness if the personal being.
However, the divine force (and the personal being) suffers from the problem of violating parsimony.
Therefore, the only one of the three that does not have any logical problems is the "nothing" concept. That is why the "nothing" concept is the one used in all secular fields of thought - those that have nothing to do with religion or atheism (ex. science et al.).
Okay, any other thoughts?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indeed, if God is truly all consciousness unbound by time, then God knows all because God personally remembers being all of us and what we went through way back when (now) when God was us. |
Here comes 'stupid'...
I think your sentence hold much good thinking! I suppose your sentence was a bit inspired by Mr Moorecook and he had some very good thoughts! Sci-fi (and others) people seems to have so good thoughts.
'(now) when god was us' - just them words alone I suppose is the best line I've heard for a long time!!! I will write that on my officewall here... They already think I'm nuts so it wont hurt...
Or taken this phrase backwards : We are God always (and especially right now)
Because man was created in the image of God, it can be inferred from that that God is similar to man.
| Soulfire wrote: | | Because man was created in the image of God, it can be inferred from that that God is similar to man. |
Does it?
The passage in question is | Genesis wrote: | | Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them...the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, 'this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.(Gen. 1:26,27; |
So man is made after the 'likeness' of God - meaning he resembles God physically (according to a normal interpretation of that phrase). Catholic theology, however, defines the likeness in terms of :- Upright physical posture ................. Trichotomous constitution of man
- Spiritual capacity of man.................. Creativity
- Reproduction .................................. Limitless potentiality
- Social organization ......................... Sociability, relational
- Productivity, work ........................... Dominion over others
- Nobility and dignity of man ............. Rationality
- Self-consciousness ......................... Communicability
- Conscience ..................................... Emotive ability to love
- Self-determination, volition ............ Moral being
- Responsibility ................................. Personality
- Appreciation of beauty ................... Immortality
- Masculinity ..................................... Inherent divinity
Clearly this has a few problems. Many of distinctions above define man in physical and natural terms. Then the Church seeks to equate these factors to a divinity which is, by definition, super-natural and, most accept, non-physical (spiritual) in essence. All that this achieves, in my opinion, is to define an anthropomorphic, humanist deity.
It also begs several questions about the nature of a masculine divinity, possessing a conscience; reproductive ability; rationality and emotions. These seem strange attributes for a deity. Why would a deity require a conscience? Can god reproduce? Why should masculinity be a property of a omnipotent being? Possession of emotions means that God must have a nervous system in some way analogous to ours which would seem odd, since our nervous system is an evolved system and therefore contains elements from lower creatures and is far from perfect in funtionality. Why would a divinity have such an obviously evolved sub-system and where would it have evolved from?
| Quote: | | It also begs several questions about the nature of a masculine divinity, possessing a conscience; reproductive ability; rationality and emotions. These seem strange attributes for a deity. Why would a deity require a conscience? Can god reproduce? Why should masculinity be a property of a omnipotent being? Possession of emotions means that God must have a nervous system in some way analogous to ours which would seem odd, since our nervous system is an evolved system and therefore contains elements from lower creatures and is far from perfect in funtionality. Why would a divinity have such an obviously evolved sub-system and where would it have evolved from? |
Unfortunately I can't offer an answer. If and when I see God, I'll be sure to ask.
| laurenrox wrote: | | Quote: | I'm a Christian and it's quite hard to understand what you're saying. Because I believe (or should I say is true) that God is the same as a higher being.
Quote:
an all-powerful being with human qualities that wants mankind to do what is right, and is vengeful, forgiving, and loving all at the same time.
Your definition of God is rather not right in a Christian viewpoint. God is not a human, but Jesus is God in human form. So it's quite confusing with all these terms. But basically I'm for God. |
1) No, you should not say it's true because you have in no way supported why you believe in God (which is what I asked for, >_<)...
2) I didn't say that God was human. I said that he had HUMAN QUALITIES, meaning that he has emotions, will, and can think.
3) Not everyone believes that Jesus was God in human form. Some believe that Jesus was actually legitimatly God's son. Think of how Zues was Hercules' father (but not in the sense that God and Mary had sex).
4) When I say "higher being" I mean a being WITHOUT human quailities (with no emotion, will, knowledge, etc) and is more of a guiding force. I believe this is what most people believe a "higher being" is. I could very well be wrong, since it has never been fully explained to me, and if someone feels that this is an incorrect description, please correct me. |
technically god cannot have human qualaties, if god has emotion then he can be angered and be happy therefore his actions can also be manipulated in some way or form and that suggests that emotions are more powerful then god as he is ruled by them.....
also jesus is god, human and the holy spirit all in one
|
