Does God seek glory?
Does he forbid people to believe on other Gods ( if there are many)
What religion does God belong to?
If Jesus had known what all the Papal people where going to do in the name of God would he have forbidden them? would the Papal guys have burnt Him at stake
Would Mohammad have approved of fundamental Islamisim?
Where was Allah before Mohammad? WHy did he wait for so many years after the establishment of Human civilization to send an angel to Mohammad
Why are there so many Gods in Hinduism
and many more Qs to come in my future posts
THe most important one is
is the following true
Christian God give salvation to only Christians
Hindu God to Hindus
Allah to Muslims
Likewise
I don't really understand what you are after in this thread, but you've put down the main question to be if god is selfish.
The other questions and angles you've brought up is depending on witch religion you apply them to. Mabye it would be
benefitting the question if we first established the defenition of god?
My answer would be yes, in some strange way, seeing god as an entety not able to be 'humanized'. The base I use
is that of the some old western philosopher that made watches, that god is everything. I can not get the name to come
back to me, but he was juish at first, but excpelled from that community for that opinion. Christians also found it
blasphemous, but I'd say it rocks! 
Anyhow, if god then is selfish, when god is everything and everything is god, is quite obvious - ofcourse.
Quite a shallow and diplomatic answer for you, based rather on semantics then belif, but then again, still an answer. God is not selfish because there is nothing that is without him! I don't know whether you get what I am saying.
Everything in this universe is already 'created'. There is nothing that you can newly create from nothing. There is the conservation of energy and matter (both are one and the same). And all these matter and energy in all its forms are all properties of God. God is the creator of the universe by definition. Therefore, everything in here is his property and they all work the way he wants. Where is the question of he being selfish?
It is something like this. You own a company and everyone there is at your will and pleasure. Where is the question of you doing something to please the next guy? that is how this is too. God has nothing to be selfish about.
Emprically you can say, selfishness is trying to own something. If own is represented by O and > represents trying to own thru selfish means, then, God O Universe. God > Universe is insane because the universe is already his.
What you ask are reasonable and appropiate questions, and there is no answer to them;)
I suppose that is one conclusion that can be drawn.
The way that I see it, God, should He exist, created the world for either one of the following two reasons.
He was insanely bored and out of his boredom came the universe as we know it
He wanted to create something to give Him an ego trip. Fill His head with wonderfull things | Idoru wrote: |
Anyhow, if god then is selfish, when god is everything and everything is god, is quite obvious - ofcourse.
Quite a shallow and diplomatic answer for you, based rather on semantics then belif, but then again, still an answer. |
"when god is everything and everything is god,"
Does that mean that even evil and satan are God
So I feel your statement when god is everything and everything is god, is wrongHm... Satan and evil, another defenition we haven't made. Is there evil? Is there satan? Is there god, for that mather?
But to keep on track and just meet the statement that my statement is wrong, there is always the teodice-problem (if that's
how it's spelled 
),
if there is a god that is almighty and good, how can there be evil in the world?
I'd say that it's people unable to see the whole perspective that creates the defenition of good and evil, and that
my statement that everything is god only is a way of putting the words for me. God is a useful word, and the only
way for me to define it is that it is everything. Also, I feel I must add, I define things as good and evil myself
aswell. As has been proved numerous times religion is more of a guideline then a way of living, witch also might
be the root of your questions. Is it a way of living, a way of thinking, or something else?
Is man selfish, and is man an image of god? You are all trying to anthropomorphize this entity we call "God." When another poster said that God is everything and everything is God, what he was getting at was that God is an infinite existence. We are not able to comprehend infinity well enough to have satisfactory answers to many of the questions we are able to ask.
The point that if God is everything then God must be both good and evil assumes a discrete understanding of what "good" and "evil" are. I challenge you to define either as anything but points relative to each other on a spectrum that we use to describe finite things or events.
It is definitely worth tackling these questions and thinking about them because along the way we may learn important things about ourselves and our lives. But we should never hope to actually understand "God" or infinity completely. It is that disconnect between ourselves and God that so many monotheistic religions seek to resolve through faith and through miraculous signs of God's presence on Earth.
| benjmd wrote: |
You are all trying to anthropomorphize this entity we call "God." When another poster said that God is everything and everything is God, what he was getting at was that God is an infinite existence. We are not able to comprehend infinity well enough to have satisfactory answers to many of the questions we are able to ask.
The point that if God is everything then God must be both good and evil assumes a discrete understanding of what "good" and "evil" are. I challenge you to define either as anything but points relative to each other on a spectrum that we use to describe finite things or events.
It is definitely worth tackling these questions and thinking about them because along the way we may learn important things about ourselves and our lives. But we should never hope to actually understand "God" or infinity completely. It is that disconnect between ourselves and God that so many monotheistic religions seek to resolve through faith and through miraculous signs of God's presence on Earth. |
You don't try to understand God! Because, you are the one who has defined God. God is defined this way! It is like defining a numeral. Where is the question of understanding him?answers from math:
1. does god seek glory? As a human but not as a God! (hm, the difference is not that big)
2. a God has no needs -> no restrictions in beliefs (or whatever)
3. 'God' doesn't belong to the existing religions since all is based on that a god has a need.
all the rest of the questions are answered by these simple statements.
Personally I believe that the people whom reside after the original "prophets" and such change the meanings of the original teachings to make them something different. Albeit some religions seem to have been created solely for influence in governing structures, most religions seem to have moderate beliefs to begin with, but radicals influence them into something more majestic.
For example, the original Buddhists believed in no Gods, nor holy beings. However, now certain sects of Buddhism consider the original Buddha a God.
There's also the myth factor. While certain aspects of stories may contain truth, they will have obviously been modified to make a better tale in the thousand years or so since the original occurrence.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Does God seek glory?
Does he forbid people to believe on other Gods ( if there are many)
What religion does God belong to?
If Jesus had known what all the Papal people where going to do in the name of God would he have forbidden them? would the Papal guys have burnt Him at stake
Would Mohammad have approved of fundamental Islamisim?
Where was Allah before Mohammad? WHy did he wait for so many years after the establishment of Human civilization to send an angel to Mohammad
Why are there so many Gods in Hinduism
and many more Qs to come in my future posts
THe most important one is
is the following true
Christian God give salvation to only Christians
Hindu God to Hindus
Allah to Muslims
Likewise |
We are part and parcel of GOD. and whatever emotions we have are present in the GOD in infinite proportion. So GOD is Selfish infinitely but at the same time converse is true. i.e. He is selfless/sacrificing in infinite proportion. How is that possible? ... ok ...read Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's 'Acintya bhedabhed tattav" written 550 years back. | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Does God seek glory? |
Yes...not for himself but for his devotees
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Does he forbid people to believe on other Gods ( if there are many) |
There are no other gods...only other names
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| What religion does God belong to? |
Religion is platform towards spirituality, which is aimed at connecting to god. Does god need to connect to himself?
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| If Jesus had known what all the Papal people where going to do in the name of God would he have forbidden them? would the Papal guys have burnt Him at stake |
They did crucify him...didnt they?
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Would Mohammad have approved of fundamental Islamisim? |
He did approve it. When the alternative was savagery in desert.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Where was Allah before Mohammad? WHy did he wait for so many years after the establishment of Human civilization to send an angel to Mohammad |
He does send angels on periodic intervals. One is writing this post at this moment...lolz....being god also means having infinite names. and there is temptation to use new one each time.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Why are there so many Gods in Hinduism |
Only one GOd in Hinduism with some 1000+ names (that is to say known/revealed names). Then there are 330 million smaller gods (demigods) who manage this universe on his behalf.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
and many more Qs to come in my future posts
THe most important one is
is the following true
Christian God give salvation to only Christians
Hindu God to Hindus
Allah to Muslims
Likewise |
stupid question....worship god in any form you like and he will give salvation in that form.
................. | amicalindia wrote: |
| Yes...not for himself but for his devotees |
A God who seeks glory for anyone is an impartial God!
| amicalindia wrote: |
| There are no other gods...only other names |
Do not have any other gods before Me : Exodus 20:2–17
So here God thought there were other Gods
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| What religion does God belong to? |
God does not recognise devotees. The world and the universe has been set in motion and they work under his laws. He never gets out of these laws. For men, these laws are not easily comprehensible! he reveals it to us one after another.
God has no reason to seek glory. Because by definition of God, he is already in the top notch of glory. Where and how can one attain more glory that the ultimate glory? God is the end of all ultimate glory.
There is no other God before him nor after him. He is the one and only God. And he is the one who appears as other gods and men and beings and non-beings. Every thing comes off him and every thing will ultimately go into him. To understand this, you need to take a cup of coffee and try to analyse where this coffee is going into when you drink it. What happens to it? Is there something called coffee that is separable after you have drunk it? So is the case before coffee was made. Where was it? In what way is that coffee hot and simmering, related to the coffee plant that made it possible? Can u see any similarities between them?
in our vain frailty we think that God will yield to prayers. Nehru use to mock at people in the Jagannath temple when Ghazni came invading. They prayed to god to save them. and they were disappointed that God did not... God never interfers with the system he has made or created. We do not matter to him. We are smaller than ants; insignificant and dumb. We think we are all important. We are not! We think God is like us. He is not.
He is like something that we have never seen. And he is something that we always see! God never yields to anyone. Just because you are a bhakta you cannot get away with your idiotic sins that is against the laws of the universe. Be sure you live by the laws that he has created. Any digression will only yield negative results.
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| God does not recognise devotees. The world and the universe has been set in motion and they work under his laws. He never gets out of these laws. For men, these laws are not easily comprehensible! he reveals it to us one after another. |
And there was me thinking that the laws of science were/are gained by hard work and human endeavour, sometimes by people who don't believe in God and would certainly not accept that their discovery was 'revealed' to them by a divinity.
If these laws were established at the start then we have a major problem. The laws of physics that apply today are a function of the space-time continuum in which we exist. At the instant of creation, the 'laws' were different. 'Before' creation is a meaningless concept so the notion of setting creation in motion is an equally meaningless concept. | Quote: |
God has no reason to seek glory. Because by definition of God, he is already in the top notch of glory. Where and how can one attain more glory that the ultimate glory? God is the end of all ultimate glory.
There is no other God before him nor after him. He is the one and only God. And he is the one who appears as other gods and men and beings and non-beings. Every thing comes off him and every thing will ultimately go into him. To understand this, you need to take a cup of coffee and try to analyse where this coffee is going into when you drink it. What happens to it? Is there something called coffee that is separable after you have drunk it? So is the case before coffee was made. Where was it? In what way is that coffee hot and simmering, related to the coffee plant that made it possible? Can u see any similarities between them? |
Not really, no.
Coffee is a combination of various chemicals each of which can be resolved down to individual elements. When you drink 'coffee' various chemical processes occur which act on the different chemicals within the coffee to produce other chemicals. I don't really see what this has to do with the notion of God.
Perhaps you saying that God is a combination of different, more fundamental entities, like coffee is a combination of different chemical compounds. These entities could then be further resolved into individual 'God' particles, like chemical compounds into their elements. Perhaps we could call these particles 'Godons'. Then, by mixing different Godons together, we could make different Gods with different properties.
Is that the idea?The concept of Godons is very interesting considering the fact that physicist have always been possessed with elementary particles!
Similarly I can think of
1. Thinkons or thoughtons
2. Brainions
and many more
| Idoru wrote: |
Hm... Satan and evil, another defenition we haven't made. Is there evil? Is there satan? Is there god, for that mather?
But to keep on track and just meet the statement that my statement is wrong, there is always the teodice-problem (if that's
how it's spelled ),
if there is a god that is almighty and good, how can there be evil in the world? |
Obviously, given the understandings and modern teachings of a god, people are given free will, the choice to do as they wish. If they choose to do something that is "evil," then there is evil in the world. And...just looking at the newspaper/watching the news I can see there is evil, so that conclusion/question doesn't fly with me personally.the right word is egotistic
like take for example the Judeo-christian god. If you will read the entire bible, you will notice that everything this god's creation does is always for his glory. We cannot say that this god is selfish since he gave salvation to mankind, but understand that he did this because he wants to be worshipped. That is why this god is egotistic, after all, who would want to worship an unimportant god?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| rshanthakumar wrote: | | God does not recognise devotees. The world and the universe has been set in motion and they work under his laws. He never gets out of these laws. For men, these laws are not easily comprehensible! he reveals it to us one after another. |
And there was me thinking that the laws of science were/are gained by hard work and human endeavour, sometimes by people who don't believe in God and would certainly not accept that their discovery was 'revealed' to them by a divinity.
If these laws were established at the start then we have a major problem. The laws of physics that apply today are a function of the space-time continuum in which we exist. At the instant of creation, the 'laws' were different. 'Before' creation is a meaningless concept so the notion of setting creation in motion is an equally meaningless concept. | Quote: |
God has no reason to seek glory. Because by definition of God, he is already in the top notch of glory. Where and how can one attain more glory that the ultimate glory? God is the end of all ultimate glory.
There is no other God before him nor after him. He is the one and only God. And he is the one who appears as other gods and men and beings and non-beings. Every thing comes off him and every thing will ultimately go into him. To understand this, you need to take a cup of coffee and try to analyse where this coffee is going into when you drink it. What happens to it? Is there something called coffee that is separable after you have drunk it? So is the case before coffee was made. Where was it? In what way is that coffee hot and simmering, related to the coffee plant that made it possible? Can u see any similarities between them? |
Not really, no.
Coffee is a combination of various chemicals each of which can be resolved down to individual elements. When you drink 'coffee' various chemical processes occur which act on the different chemicals within the coffee to produce other chemicals. I don't really see what this has to do with the notion of God.
Perhaps you saying that God is a combination of different, more fundamental entities, like coffee is a combination of different chemical compounds. These entities could then be further resolved into individual 'God' particles, like chemical compounds into their elements. Perhaps we could call these particles 'Godons'. Then, by mixing different Godons together, we could make different Gods with different properties.
Is that the idea? |
Not really!
Coffee mixes up with you and where are you and where is the coffee? I am trying to look at coffee as a base particle. Do not get into the sub constituents of the coffee, it could be more complex as complex as the mega large ideas on god are. Now, look at coffee as a base particle; inseparable. Look at man as another such base object. What happens to coffee after it is drunk by the man is it merges with the man and becomes a part of him! Coffee doesnot exist any more than dinosaurs.
This is nature that I am talking about. One becoming the other and the other moving over or manifesting itself into the third one and so on. You may look at it as energy from one form to the other. You may say hydrogen into helium or whatever. One to the other and to the third and so on.
God is this way. From Him everything comes out and everything goes in! There is no difference between these. because they all are one and the same. But at the same time they are different. Coffee was different from a man. But when the man drank it, coffee merged into the man and became one with him. I am not talking about God and what is god made of. I am talking about God and how God makes everything. From the atoms to the sub atomic particles. | Bikerman wrote: |
| rshanthakumar wrote: | | God does not recognise devotees. The world and the universe has been set in motion and they work under his laws. He never gets out of these laws. For men, these laws are not easily comprehensible! he reveals it to us one after another. |
And there was me thinking that the laws of science were/are gained by hard work and human endeavour, sometimes by people who don't believe in God and would certainly not accept that their discovery was 'revealed' to them by a divinity.
|
God does not 'reveal' it to any one who is lazy and sulking. Whether he is a believer of God or not, if he is working within the laws of the nature and that of the universe, the right revelations happen to him.
Any good machine if it is really very well made, it does not require the manufacturer's help to run it. If it is a bad machine you will possibly call up the manufacturer for service every new day. That is the case with God too. There is hardly any reason why man need to call God for service.god only helps hose who help themselves and who believe in god, for the rest let them think that god is a farce or whatever they wanna think
its only faith n belief that is important without which there is no god for ppl who do not believe
| Quote: |
Would Mohammad have approved of fundamental Islamisim?
Where was Allah before Mohammad? WHy did he wait for so many years after the establishment of Human civilization to send an angel to Mohammad |
Where was God before Judaism? YES! Allah simply means GOD in ARABIC. It is the SAME God, the ONLY God, that guided Jesus and guided Moses and guided Muhammed...you need to understand this...
There is no such thing as a "Christian God" and "Jewish God" and a "Muslim God".
ONE AND SAME BEING...
Allah just means God in Arabic, you are just too misinformed!
Last edited by HalfBloodPrince on Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:20 pm; edited 1 time in total | rshanthakumar wrote: |
| God does not 'reveal' it to any one who is lazy and sulking. Whether he is a believer of God or not, if he is working within the laws of the nature and that of the universe, the right revelations happen to him. |
Neither, by your definition, does he reveal it to anyone at all. How could God reveal himself without breaking one or more of the laws that he set in motion? | Quote: |
| Any good machine if it is really very well made, it does not require the manufacturer's help to run it. If it is a bad machine you will possibly call up the manufacturer for service every new day. That is the case with God too. There is hardly any reason why man need to call God for service. |
That might be true for a machine but the universe does not fit the description of a machine since it is constantly changing/evolving. A machine is different from a set of rules.
You start by saying God created a set of rules by which the universe runs. That is possible. Many people believe something along those lines - God started the Big Bang and left the rest upto the physical laws of nature. I cannot refute that, other than to say that for this to be true God must be entirely outside time and space since they both came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang.
You then move on to compare the universe to a machine. This does not work as an analogy. Stick with the 'rule maker' analogy which works much better.
Evolution, for example, can be seen as a set of rules. We could simplify the rules thus:
Rule 1 - Genetic material is damaged randomly (most by radiation although possibly by chemical or physical damage)
Rule 2 - New individuals are produced by reproduction and have copies of the parent genes.
Outcome - Genetic damage (mutation) which allows sucessful reproduction will be spread. Genetic mutation that offers an advantage in reproduction will be spread quicker.
It's not a machine - you can't predict what the product will be, although you can make guesses based on the environment. It's simply a set of rules. | Bikerman wrote: |
| I cannot refute that, other than to say that for this to be true God must be entirely outside time and space since they both came intro existence at the moment of the Big Bang. |
Exactly. I'll give you a very mundane example; making a video game. In a video-game, the company designing it has to implement a physics engine into the game-universe, along with limits and boundaries as to what can and can't be done in the game.
In a very simple game, say the characters are configured to run, jump, walk, and punch.
Are the game developers inside the game? No, they are totally out of the boundaries and limits as to what can be done inside the game, yet they still have total control over what goes on.
Does this seem familiar? | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | I cannot refute that, other than to say that for this to be true God must be entirely outside time and space since they both came intro existence at the moment of the Big Bang. |
Exactly. I'll give you a very mundane example; making a video game. In a video-game, the company designing it has to implement a physics engine into the game-universe, along with limits and boundaries as to what can and can't be done in the game.
In a very simple game, say the characters are configured to run, jump, walk, and punch.
Are the game developers inside the game? No, they are totally out of the boundaries and limits as to what can be done inside the game, yet they still have total control over what goes on.
Does this seem familiar? |
Sure - OK, let's run with that example.
Would the characters in the video game have any way of knowing of the existence of the programmer? Could they, under any circumstances, infer the existence of the programmer?Well, the difference in this example is that the video-game characters are not sentient (having the ability to think) like we are, which eliminates mental processes such as curiosity. Would they have these mental processes, they would surely inquire as to how and why there are in this universe (the in-game world), and conclude that there is an outside force (in this case, the game developer) who is controlling and guiding what happens.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Well, the difference in this example is that the video-game characters are not sentient (having the ability to think) like we are, which eliminates mental processes such as curiosity. Would they have these mental processes, they would surely inquire as to how and why there are in this universe (the in-game world), and conclude that there is an outside force (in this case, the game developer) who is controlling and guiding what happens. |
I am granting them that consciousness - that's what I meant by 'in any circumstances'. There is, however, no way that they could know the existence of a programmer UNLESS the programmer intervened in the game and so demonstrated his presence. If the programmer DID intervene then he/she would be interfering with the rules of the game - we would have a miracle.
I'm not saying that the characters might not evolve a concept of a programmer, they might well. I'm simply saying that it could never be proved.
There is a hypothesis in philosophy that we are all characters in an artificial reality construct - almost identical to the analogy you raised. This is a genuine hypothesis, not a joke (it would be a little bit like the matrix but our characters would be the 'whole' person without some external body somewhere in a tank). It is a perfectly logical world-view but it has the problem that it can never be proved or disproved. | Bikerman wrote: |
| There is, however, no way that they could know the existence of a programmer UNLESS the programmer intervened in the game and so demonstrated his presence. If the programmer DID intervene then he/she would be interfering with the rules of the game - we would have a miracle. |
And this is why we have the Tankah, Bible, and Quran.So you are saying that these scriptural references represent miracles - ie they are a result of Divine intervention? That would be the equivalent of the programmer inserting a programming reference into the game.
One problem with that view is, to take the example of the bible, there must have been a huge number of divine interventions to give us the bible as it exists today. Was God intervening at each point in the contruction of the OT and NT?
Another problem is - why would God not simply give us one reference? Why several different ones which contain elements which contradict each other? If, as you seem to believe, the same God is responsible for the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and the Quran then why all three? You have previously said that there is a refining process from the Hebrew Bible through to the Quran with each representing an improvement on the last. That doesn't really work as a theory however since it would seem to imply that the Hebrew Bible and the NT are flawed (ie in need of refinement) and surely God would not make a mistake?
No, they are not flawed. They were perfect one-upon-a-time, but over time people had changed and corrupted the OT, obscuring the truths Moses had brought mankind, and so mankind was in need of the NT. Again, it was changed by people, bent to their will, and so mankind needed the FT. Did you know that, after 1,400 years, not a single syllable of the Quran has changed? God has explicitly states that he protects the Quran. On a normal page size, it's about 600 pages long, and it is so commonly memorized by 8-10 year old children. In Quranic Arabic, there are about four variations of each letter, making about 100 characters, and children, yes, eight year old children, are able to recite a six hundred page book in old-fashioned Arabic, par perfect syllable, every variation of every character perfect, etc...
I even KNOW several people who memorized the Quran in its entirety (when they were younger, after a certain stage the human brain simply cannot do it), and would be able to write out the whole book for you?
A normal person cannot memorize even a 100 page book in simple English that easily.
Hang about. I thought that the Hebrew Bible exists pretty much as it was written. Are you saying that the current version of the OT is corrupted? If so then where and when did this corruption occur?
The New Testament is a completely different set of documents - not a new version of the OT. Indeed it represents the formation of an entirely new religion, not an 'improvement' on the previous religion - Judaism.
There are various conflicts between the Quran and the OT - the one that springs to mind is the account of creation. Genesis has one version, the Quran a completely different version. Are you saying that Genesis is a corrupted account and that the Quran has it right?
The memory feats involved in memorising the Quran are impressive but not really relevant to this discussion.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Did you know that, after 1,400 years, not a single syllable of the Quran has changed? |
False.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| God has explicitly states that he protects the Quran. |
If that is so, then the evidence indicates that has God is lying or incompetent.^That is a very good link, saving it for future reference
| Bikerman wrote: |
| rshanthakumar wrote: | | God does not 'reveal' it to any one who is lazy and sulking. Whether he is a believer of God or not, if he is working within the laws of the nature and that of the universe, the right revelations happen to him. |
Neither, by your definition, does he reveal it to anyone at all. How could God reveal himself without breaking one or more of the laws that he set in motion? | Quote: | | Any good machine if it is really very well made, it does not require the manufacturer's help to run it. If it is a bad machine you will possibly call up the manufacturer for service every new day. That is the case with God too. There is hardly any reason why man need to call God for service. |
That might be true for a machine but the universe does not fit the description of a machine since it is constantly changing/evolving. A machine is different from a set of rules.
You start by saying God created a set of rules by which the universe runs. That is possible. Many people believe something along those lines - God started the Big Bang and left the rest upto the physical laws of nature. I cannot refute that, other than to say that for this to be true God must be entirely outside time and space since they both came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang.
You then move on to compare the universe to a machine. This does not work as an analogy. Stick with the 'rule maker' analogy which works much better.
Evolution, for example, can be seen as a set of rules. We could simplify the rules thus:
Rule 1 - Genetic material is damaged randomly (most by radiation although possibly by chemical or physical damage)
Rule 2 - New individuals are produced by reproduction and have copies of the parent genes.
Outcome - Genetic damage (mutation) which allows sucessful reproduction will be spread. Genetic mutation that offers an advantage in reproduction will be spread quicker.
It's not a machine - you can't predict what the product will be, although you can make guesses based on the environment. It's simply a set of rules. |
I was not aroound for some time, Chris. So here is my answer to your comments.
1. It is very difficult to define what is life and what is a machine. Still scientists find it difficult to define what life form is. There could be life forms which could be similar to our motor cars for all that we know and might have reproduction mechanisms that could be totally different from what we are used to. Life forms could exist in ways that could be absolutely new to us. Therefore, the question of machine and what is a machine are pretty difficult to define.
2. However, my usage of machine was only an analogy for that particular point and not for the entire universe.
3. All machines do work within the rules of the universe.
4. The difference between bio and chemical products are thin. so is the physical and chemical feature of materials too. Physical theories are not separable from the chemical theories nor do they exist away from the biological ones. Universe is not and cannot be isolated physical, chemical and biological beings. They are all one and the same governed by one unified theory, yet realisable.
5. Coming back to our original question of is god selfish... pl read my first post. I have tried to restrict myself to the question alone. God has no reason to be selfish because by definition of God, he is the maker of the Universe and there is nothing for him to be selfish about. | Indi wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Did you know that, after 1,400 years, not a single syllable of the Quran has changed? |
False.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | God has explicitly states that he protects the Quran. |
If that is so, then the evidence indicates that has God is lying or incompetent. |
I think one should talk about sound facts here or argue in a better way It would be wrong to talk about Quran blindly
Look at all the facts about the bible
I think Quran was Mohamed's Imagination and probable a good one at that given the circumstance at the time he lived
now it is out dated
now for the other quote "God has no reason to be selfish because by definition of God, he is the maker of the Universe and there is nothing for him to be selfish about"
If he is the only God why should he be selfish at all after he is the only one he heimself is the only self and if thats the case he is selfish after all
Ah it is getting a bit confu | Indi wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Did you know that, after 1,400 years, not a single syllable of the Quran has changed? |
False.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | God has explicitly states that he protects the Quran. |
If that is so, then the evidence indicates that has God is lying or incompetent. |
Since this topic has come back to life...
| HBP wrote: |
| Indi, I think what you may be talking about is finding copies of the Quran in a different dialect of Arabic. Egyptians do not understand Lebanese Arabic, who do not understand Saudi Arabian Arabic (well, some of it), and so you are looking, simply at a different language. We don't claim English versions, or even different dialects of Arabic versions haven't changed; thats just up to interpretation. The original, classical Saudi Arabian Arabic version, however, is what we say hasn't changed. There are many similarities in the different dialects of Arabic, but the differences remain. |
The point is that the newly discovered copies of the Quran are the oldest in existence. The Quran you read today is based on a later version. Which one is right?
But how sure are you that the newly discovered ones are in the same dialect of Arabic?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| But how sure are you that the newly discovered ones are in the same dialect of Arabic? |
Well, that should be relatively easy to test. Translate the new discoveries from whatever dialect they are in to the Saudi dialect. Compare the two. If they match, no problem. If they don't - whoops.
The implication from the link provided is that they don't. | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Does God seek glory?
Where was Allah before Mohammad? WHy did he wait for so many years after the establishment of Human civilization to send an angel to Mohammad
|
Allah is the same God that Christians and Jewish people believe in. So to answer your question, before Mohammad, God was doing things like commanding Moses to part the Red Sea and sending his son down to die.I agree with that for the most part (minus the son part), 'Allah' is simply 'God' in Arabic. He's not supposed to be some other deity (like Vishnu, Ram, Brahma, etc.).
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
Since this topic has come back to life...
| HBP wrote: | | Indi, I think what you may be talking about is finding copies of the Quran in a different dialect of Arabic. Egyptians do not understand Lebanese Arabic, who do not understand Saudi Arabian Arabic (well, some of it), and so you are looking, simply at a different language. We don't claim English versions, or even different dialects of Arabic versions haven't changed; thats just up to interpretation. The original, classical Saudi Arabian Arabic version, however, is what we say hasn't changed. There are many similarities in the different dialects of Arabic, but the differences remain. |
|
You don't need to try to decode what i am talking about. ^_^; Why take my word at all? i'm just an infidel scholar, after all. ^_^ Google is your friend. You can read the press releases of the findings, and even the actual papers written by the researchers, if you have access. You can even download images of the pages and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it, i won't be offended. ^_^
But for the record... your logic is bizarre. The "standard" Arabic you are talking about - Saudi Arabian Arabic... didn't exist in Mohammed's time. So... how could ancient copies of the Qur'an be written in a script that did not then exist?
But anyway... no, these are original Qur'an's one or two generations (of text, not of people) removed from the original standardized copies (by Uthman and his cronies). In fact, they may even be original Uthman copies, except that the original text was scraped off and written over.
The next logical question is, "Gee, Indi, why hasn't the world heard about this then? This should be big news!"
Good question. And, i have the answer. The problem is twofold.
First, most of the researchers are afraid for their lives. Two were already murdered for digging two deep (that i know of). They are also afraid that the revelation will be striking a match in the powder keg that is the Middle East - which is a recipe for nothing but disaster.
Second, the original manuscripts are in possession of the Yemeni government. And the Yemeni government, is, unfortunately, an Islamic state. The researchers for almost 30 years danced delicately around what they had, hemming and hawing, afraid that if they said what it was, the Yemeni government would destroy the evidence. It was only a few years ago that - and this sounds like something out of a freakin spy movie - a researcher managed to snap tens of thousands of microfilm images of the text, and smuggle them out of Yemen. It has been on the basis of poring over those microfilm shots that most of the translation has been done. Only a handful of researchers has been allowed access to the actual documents.
Even today, work is being done in fits and starts, because they're still afraid that if they come out too forcefully, the evidence will be destroyed (or the Islamic crazies will go on a killing spree). But they're getting bolder and bolder. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| But how sure are you that the newly discovered ones are in the same dialect of Arabic? |
Dialects are irrelevant. You said "not one syllable has changed". If the Koran is different in different dialects, your statement is false by definition. | jeremyp wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | But how sure are you that the newly discovered ones are in the same dialect of Arabic? |
Dialects are irrelevant. You said "not one syllable has changed". If the Koran is different in different dialects, your statement is false by definition. |
Uhh...a different dialect is basically a different language; Egyptians don't understand Lebanese Arabic. And so on. I meant it hasn't changed in dialect it was first "written" in. 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| I agree with that for the most part (minus the son part), 'Allah' is simply 'God' in Arabic. He's not supposed to be some other deity (like Vishnu, Ram, Brahma, etc.). |
Yeah don't Muslims believe that Christ wasn't the Son of God but just a prophet, like Mohammad? I don't know a lot about most religions but I can tell you the gist of many of them. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Uhh...a different dialect is basically a different language; Egyptians don't understand Lebanese Arabic. And so on. I meant it hasn't changed in dialect it was first "written" in. |
But since you don't have a copy of the first written version then you can't say that is true, can you? The fact is that the earliest version of the Quran that we know about - the one in the link - is different from the currently accepted version. You can't explain that away with arguments about language and dialects. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Yeah don't Muslims believe that Christ wasn't the Son of God but just a prophet, like Mohammad? I don't know a lot about most religions but I can tell you the gist of many of them. |
Pretty much; just like Moses was physically an ordinary, human man, who was given certain miracles from God (call Him God, Lord, Allah, Yahweh, the one and the same). His birth was a miracle, because his mother conceived him without any form of sexual intercourse. Being a man, an ordinary human man, Jesus even told his people that he wasn't divine. People couldn't believe that a human could do these miracles, with the help of God; and so some started to believe Jesus to be divine. We also don't believe Jesus was crucified; he was raised to Heaven or God or whatever you call it before he was tortured and put on the cross. The Church filled the Bible, specifically the NT, with a lot of...crap.
Lo! Here comes Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, to bring a new message to humanity. As we believe, the angel Gabriel came to Prophet Muhammed and periodically brought to him the Quran. Also, as we believe, God made the Quran a read-only file so it's safe from any over-imaginative religious leaders (let's just call them that 
).
For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
Sorry for the poor writing, I'm really tired...cya later.. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Uhh...a different dialect is basically a different language; Egyptians don't understand Lebanese Arabic. And so on. I meant it hasn't changed in dialect it was first "written" in. |
But since you don't have a copy of the first written version then you can't say that is true, can you? The fact is that the earliest version of the Quran that we know about - the one in the link - is different from the currently accepted version. You can't explain that away with arguments about language and dialects. |
Actually, we can say that it's false. ^_^ Even without the obvious evidence in front of us.
Modern Arabic scripts have extra markings that were not used in the seventh century. Arabic scripts way back when (like Hebrew scripts, FYI) were not meant to write "books" in the sense that we consider them today. Back in those days, everything was passed down orally (even the Qur'an in the early days). Things were only written down script form to serve as memory aids - like shorthand.
When you compare more articulate scripts like Greek, Latin - and even the Asian ideographic scripts - those were intended to write books as we understand them. You'd write the text, and the text would be the preserved word. When you wanted to recall the content, you'd go to the written text, and it would all be there. If you died and someone else found your written work, they would have the entirety of your work.
Not so with languages like Hebrew and Arabic (in the early days). When you wrote something down, you were not preserving the word, you were simply making crib notes. The preserved word was in your memory. If you died and someone found your written work, they would not have the complete text.
One of the key things that was missing were vowel markers. Old Arabic (and Hebrew) text, lks lk ths. Thr r n vwls n t. ("looks like this. There are no vowels in it.") Hard to read, yeah? In some cases, pretty impossible. But that's not a problem because you'd have the real text in mind. If you had memorized the passage: "There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the galaxy." Then all you would need to recall it perfectly is: "Thr r ths wh blv tht lf hr bgn t thr, fr crss th glxy." There is no way you could accidentally change the text to "There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe." which you might be prone to do otherwise.
The punch line: vowel marks didn't come into use until roughly 800 CE (let's be generous and say they came in to play around 750 CE). If you look at the images of the oldest Qur'an pages (which date from c.675 CE), you will see probably see that there are none. So the claim that the text has been copied verbatim, syllable for syllable, since the beginning, is an outright lie.
But wait! There's more!
That's just pronunciation (usually, although, as in English, sometimes two very similar words may differ in only vowels), so there's still room for the devout Muslim to claim that the text itself has remained unchanged - just the vowel markers were added later, and confirmed by oral tradition, so they did not change the meaning.
However! The differences found by the German scholars who found those early texts are not simply that there are no vowel markers. There are real structural changes. (Which, incidentally, rules out the claim about different dialects causing the difference - even if the dialect a text was translated into varied, the structure of the text should remain the same. Paragraphs should not move around, and sentences should not appear and disappear.) | Indi wrote: |
But wait! There's more!
That's just pronunciation (usually, although, as in English, sometimes two very similar words may differ in only vowels), so there's still room for the devout Muslim to claim that the text itself has remained unchanged - just the vowel markers were added later, and confirmed by oral tradition, so they did not change the meaning.
However! The differences found by the German scholars who found those early texts are not simply that there are no vowel markers. There are real structural changes. (Which, incidentally, rules out the claim about different dialects causing the difference - even if the dialect a text was translated into varied, the structure of the text should remain the same. Paragraphs should not move around, and sentences should not appear and disappear.) |
Care to give an example?
Haha don't worry, I'm not pissed off at anything (if I sound like that). Just curious. And hungry. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | But wait! There's more!
That's just pronunciation (usually, although, as in English, sometimes two very similar words may differ in only vowels), so there's still room for the devout Muslim to claim that the text itself has remained unchanged - just the vowel markers were added later, and confirmed by oral tradition, so they did not change the meaning.
However! The differences found by the German scholars who found those early texts are not simply that there are no vowel markers. There are real structural changes. (Which, incidentally, rules out the claim about different dialects causing the difference - even if the dialect a text was translated into varied, the structure of the text should remain the same. Paragraphs should not move around, and sentences should not appear and disappear.) |
Care to give an example?
Haha don't worry, I'm not pissed off at anything (if I sound like that). Just curious. And hungry. |
i don't have any examples, just the word of scholars who have had their research verified by thousands of friendly and hostile scholars. If you want specific examples, you'd have to read through their papers. Look up Gerd Puin (in German, but there are English translations), Subhii al-Saalih or Subhi al-Saleh (same person, just different transliterations, writing in Arabic, if you can read it), and Pat Crone (in English, mostly just summarizing the work of the German scholars who have the actual pages) to start.I'll take a look. And yes, I can read Arabic. I can't understand it though. 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| I'll take a look. And yes, I can read Arabic. I can't understand it though. |
That might make reading a scholarly paper somewhat difficult.God has no need to be selfish if you think within the known realms of knowledge.
But if you analyse the fact, that god has made man and the universe for a purpose(!) would mean that he was selfish afterall. For his own selfish gains, he has made the universe and therefore, the earth for all of us to suffer!
What can you call him but selfish?
