Assigning Human Qualities to God

[SalixIncendium]

What does that mean?

If something isn't, it can't be, can it?

 

[Left Coast]

If something isn't, it can't be, can it?

Yes, that's a truism. A =/= not-A.

My question is...what's A? What does it refer to? How would one actually distinguish A from not-A?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, that's a truism. A =/= not-A.

My question is...what's A? What does it refer to? How would one actually distinguish A from not-A?

We are discussing what is and what isn't. Can you please ask me what you're trying to ask me using the terms we are discussing and not convolute the discussion with abstract terms like "A" and "not-A"?

 

[Left Coast]

We are discussing what is and what isn't. Can you please ask me what you're trying to ask me using the terms we are discussing and not convolute the discussion with abstract terms like "A" and "not-A"?

I already did ask, but I'll happily ask again:

What does it mean for something to "be"? How would we distinguish something that is from something that isn't?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I already did ask, but I'll happily ask again:

What does it mean for something to "be"? How would we distinguish something that is from something that isn't?

Something that "is" can be experienced, whereas something that "isn't" cannot.

 

[halbhh]

Do you assign human qualities to God? Why?

Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks? Does God have a brain? Because last I checked, one needs a brain to think.

God wants? Why do you assume God has desire?

God gets angry? Anger is a product of ego. Why do you assume God has an ego?

I could go on all day about statements I've heard where people assign such human qualities to God.

Is it not plausible that God has none of these human qualities? Is it not possible that God just is?

Many parts here. While most people do indeed assign attributes to God, including many atheists also, and often the attributes don't agree with the few things that are widely understood and agreed to in scriptures of many kinds...we can with humility try not to do it ourselves.

What little we do know about God can come from scriptures reasonably, but going past that is most often going to be 'projection'.

('projection' -- When someone asserts about someone else that they have ____ characteristic/attribute, someone else whom they don't know in person really well, those assigned attributes are in reality (almost always) attributes of themselves (often not recognized) inside themselves they are 'projecting' onto that other person.)

But you also have many other ideas you are raising, so I'll respond in another post about some of those.

 

[halbhh]

God gets angry? Anger is a product of ego.

I think this one is pretty interesting.

It seems correct to say "Anger is often a product of ego." (using one of the most common definitions of 'ego' -- as meaning pride or self-image)

With that common definition of 'ego', such an anger would not include for instance indignation in response to the mistreatment of other people.

e.g. -- Anger person X feels upon reading or hearing about a crime committed against other person Y, such as an assault or slander, etc.

e.g. -- I could potentially get angry that refugees on the southern border were slandered by a politician, even though I do not personally know those refugees being slandered by the politician, and do not share any language or ethnicity with them. They can be unrelated to me in all normal ways (other than simply that they are also human beings). That anger at their mistreatment is not an prideful response, but instead it's a reaction of anger at unfairness done to other people.

(of course one could use a less common broader definition of 'ego' and then it gets more interesting, but the above example still works in that it is an innate (hard wired) response -- we have an inherent sense of 'fairness' hard wired in our brains)

Note that we cannot just assume God is wholly and entirely alien compared to us. He might share some characteristics.

 

[halbhh]

To assume or assert that God could not get angry (or could not get angry unless egoistic, etc.) would be to assign a characteristic to God from our own speculations.

The very thing we are trying to be cautious not to do.

Do you assign human qualities to God? Why?

Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks? Does God have a brain? Because last I checked, one needs a brain to think.

God wants? Why do you assume God has desire?

God gets angry? Anger is a product of ego. Why do you assume God has an ego?

I could go on all day about statements I've heard where people assign such human qualities to God.

Is it not plausible that God has none of these human qualities? Is it not possible that God just is?

 

[firedragon]

Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks? Does God have a brain? Because last I checked, one needs a brain to think.

1. Who said God thinks? Like humans or animals? Didnt you just anthropomorphise God? Is not that a caricature you created?
2. Humans developed a processor that can do processing. And you "think" thinking only is possible with a brain?

God wants? Why do you assume God has desire?

Who said God wants things?

Do you assign human qualities to God? Why?

Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks? Does God have a brain? Because last I checked, one needs a brain to think.

God wants? Why do you assume God has desire?

God gets angry? Anger is a product of ego. Why do you assume God has an ego?

I could go on all day about statements I've heard where people assign such human qualities to God.

Is it not plausible that God has none of these human qualities? Is it not possible that God just is?

To cut it short, are you just going based on what some one here and there had told you?

Not worth it. I think you are beyond this.

 

[osgart]

I picture God as having human qualities yet without faults or weaknesses.

God feels anger, jealousy, compassion, empathy. God is faithful and loyal to those faithful and loyal. God is ultra deserving of only the best human qualities that could potentially or actually be.

So God is totally relatable to those that ultimately desire to be like God is. Otherwise he is exercising forbearance and mercy toward those that are blind to God's relatable qualities, or simply don't wish to be all the things that God is.

Why would anyone limit God as being totally unrelatable is beyond me. Rather God is completely understanding and always reads past everything to the heart of the matter.

If God were not relatable then that renders God as an object that is totally useless. Rather God understands every iota of everything human.

God feels deeply the plights of humans or is totally without worth to us all.

God would be completely honest and knowledgeable as to see through all deceits, and conceits of a human being. It's just that God is not tricked or fooled. God would have to be the master and commander of all his desires and feelings. And what moves God to relate to us humans is love, compassion, and empathy.

What else would a God feel or be conscientious of if it didn't involve the best human qualities?

 

[Left Coast]

Something that "is" can be experienced, whereas something that "isn't" cannot.

How would one experience something that has no attributes? What would be experienced? How would it be distinguished from experiencing nothing?

 

[stvdv]

Do you assign human qualities to God? Why?

Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks?

That has to do with the Path of Bhakti. And it's the basis of Indian Spiritual traditions. You have said on RF, if I remember correctly, that you are more interested in the Path of Jnana. So, I won't bother you with the details (also because I am not in the Path of debating, and also because I only believe in first hand knowledge, so if one really wants to know, one has to practise it and experience it, IME). I followed the Path of Bhakhi for many years, and I understand why people do what they do, and it makes a lot of sense to me. A little study into the lives of some Great Indian Bhaktas gave me all the above answers, but it was still bookish knowledge, but only after practising it for a while and experience the 'magic', I could 'feel' it a bit. Real life Master Trumps reading books though

 

[SalixIncendium]

1. Who said God thinks? Like humans or animals?

I'm not going to call out members here, but I've read posts here that assert that God thinks.

Didnt you just anthropomorphise God? Is not that a caricature you created?

Where?

2. Humans developed a processor that can do processing. And you "think" thinking only is possible with a brain?

Yes. Like you said, processors process. They don't think.

Who said God wants things?

Again, I'm not calling out members. If you look around, you'll find the posts.

To cut it short, are you just going based on what some one here and there had told you?

More than one. But I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.

Not worth it. I think you are beyond this.

I'm not beyond learning why people think the way they do.



Now that you're done critiquing my OP, did you have something to offer in response to the questions posted in it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

How would one experience something that has no attributes? What would be experienced? How would it be distinguished from experiencing nothing?

We're getting a bit off the topic of assigning human qualities to God. But that's a great question.

One way is through neti-neti...by dropping everything that has an attribute and experiencing what is left.

But I'm not sure that's really what you intended to ask. I think you're wanting to know how one might describe an experience of "something" with no attributes. I'm not sure that's possible to describe with words.

 

[Left Coast]

We're getting a bit off the topic of assigning human qualities to God. But that's a great question.

One way is through neti-neti...by dropping everything that has an attribute and experiencing what is left.

But I'm not sure that's really what you intended to ask. I think you're wanting to know how one might describe an experience of "something" with no attributes. I'm not sure that's possible to describe with words.

I'm not sure it's possible, period. To experience something is to have some sort of conscious awareness of the thing that distinguishes it from other things. The only way I know of to distinguish one thing from another (or from nothing) is if they have distinct attributes. Like if my cat enters the room, the only way I know it's my cat and not my dog (or not nothing at all) is because of the attributes of the thing coming into my field of awareness.

If this is too far afield from what you wanted to discuss, I apologize.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. Like you said, processors process. They don't think.

So how do you know that thinking is not processing? Im just curious. Lets say in your thesis, you say one cannot think without a brain. Do you mean now to say that the brain is not processing?

Now that you're done critiquing my OP, did you have something to offer in response to the questions posted in it?

I will when you substantiate your OP's statements with some substantial information, not just hear say like "someone in the forum told me". How could one person answer questions that have no bearing whatsoever?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So how do you know that thinking is not processing? Im just curious. Lets say in your thesis, you say one cannot think without a brain. Do you mean now to say that the brain is not processing?

I never said the thinking is not processing. I said processors don't think.

I'm not sure what your goal is in trying to conflate thinking and processing.

I will when you substantiate your OP's statements with some substantial information, not just hear say like "someone in the forum told me". How could one person answer questions that have no bearing whatsoever?

People that have responded to this very thread have substantiated what I said. All you have to do is read.

If you don't want to address the questions the OP, then I don't know why you bothered to reply to begin with.

 

[stvdv]

I'm not sure it's possible, period. To experience something is to have some sort of conscious awareness of the thing that distinguishes it from other things.

I am sure it's possible. Human has 5 outer senses, as well as 5 inner senses. That's the trick. Outer senses is obvious, inner takes more effort.

 

[firedragon]

I never said the thinking is not processing. I said processors don't think.

How do you differentiate between processing and thinking? Brains process things right? Dont you think so? If you think brains dont process, then say so. But I am sure you dont.

I am not conflating them. But you are making them cloven. The thing with your questions is that you had made God completely human, a man God, who "thinks". What if God does not think as in with a bran and muscles and all of those other stuff that is biology, but processes in another manner that you dont understand, the same way humans did not understand how a processor will do the so called processing in the times when algorithms were still being developed?

People that have responded to this very thread have substantiated what I said. All you have to do is read.

Sorry, that's not good enough. Thats just hearsay. And if that is your methodology, then its not worthy.

So ciao.

 

[Left Coast]

I am sure it's possible. Human has 5 outer senses, as well as 5 inner senses. That's the trick. Outer senses is obvious, inner takes more effort.

What is an "inner sense?" Perhaps a topic for another thread, as I believe Salix wants to keep this thread on the subject of God's allegedly human qualities.