Colt
Well-Known Member
AI seems less emotionally invested.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Can Theology Really Study the "Nature of God?" An AI answer.
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
That's not the point. Where it gets information from is though. And I think most involved with AI of any description will know we are still some way off from actually getting true intelligence so as such to make meaningful assessments of reality.
And again, somebody who knows far more than could be possible about what God is thinking....always makes me laugh.
Colt
Well-Known Member
It’s not complicated, you are just defiant and rebel against God.
If I were a rebel against my own nation, I'd be arrested. My nation is not, by the way all-powerful. I would expect, if I were really a rebel against any omnipotent entity, my rebellion would be quickly (read instantly) put down.
"Oh," you'll say, "that's not how God works -- he gives you 'free will' to do what you will. God allows you to do wrong."
To which I will then respond, "Can God do wrong? If not, then God Himself has no free will! And therefore cannot be said to allow or disallow anything, not already pre-determined in some other fashion."
Colt
Well-Known Member
There is a time lag of justice, that's why Lucifer and his followers were afforded so much time to repent, turn back from their rebellion. Within the infinity of Goodness God has the full range of good, of expression.
Relative freedom of will within our sphere of existence does not come with choices that you will make.
3:3.3 (49.2) God is possessed of unlimited power to know all things; his consciousness is universal. His personal circuit encompasses all personalities, and his knowledge of even the lowly creatures is supplemented indirectly through the descending series of divine Sons and directly through the indwelling Thought Adjusters. And furthermore, the Infinite Spirit is all the time everywhere present.
3:3.4 (49.3) We are not wholly certain as to whether or not God chooses to foreknow events of sin. But even if God should foreknow the freewill acts of his children, such foreknowledge does not in the least abrogate their freedom. One thing is certain: God is never subjected to surprise.
3:3.5 (49.4) Omnipotence does not imply the power to do the nondoable, the ungodlike act. Neither does omniscience imply the knowing of the unknowable. But such statements can hardly be made comprehensible to the finite mind. The creature can hardly understand the range and limitations of the will of the Creator." UB
Omnipotence and Compossibility
118:5.1 (1299.1) The omnipotence of Deity does not imply the power to do the nondoable. Within the time-space frame and from the intellectual reference point of mortal comprehension, even the infinite God cannot create square circles or produce evil that is inherently good. God cannot do the ungodlike thing. Such a contradiction of philosophic terms is the equivalent of nonentity and implies that nothing is thus created. A personality trait cannot at the same time be Godlike and ungodlike. Compossibility is innate in divine power. And all of this is derived from the fact that omnipotence not only creates things with a nature but also gives origin to the nature of all things and beings.118:5.2 (1299.2) In the beginning the Father does all, but as the panorama of eternity unfolds in response to the will and mandates of the Infinite, it becomes increasingly apparent that creatures, even men, are to become God’s partners in the realization of finality of destiny. And this is true even in the life in the flesh; when man and God enter into partnership, no limitation can be placed upon the future possibilities of such a partnership. When man realizes that the Universal Father is his partner in eternal progression, when he fuses with the indwelling Father presence, he has, in spirit, broken the fetters of time and has already entered upon the progressions of eternity in the quest for the Universal Father.
118:5.3 (1299.3) Mortal consciousness proceeds from the fact, to the meaning, and then to the value. Creator consciousness proceeds from the thought-value, through the word-meaning, to the fact of action. Always must God act to break the deadlock of the unqualified unity inherent in existential infinity. Always must Deity provide the pattern universe, the perfect personalities, the original truth, beauty, and goodness for which all subdeity creations strive. Always must God first find man that man may later find God. Always must there be a Universal Father before there can ever be universal sonship and consequent universal brotherhood." UB 1955
Last edited:
Your preferred "scripture," the Urantia Book, doesn't impress me any more than any other. Its too-too convenient explanation that "we're not allowed to tell you the science of the future (post 1950s), but we know what it is" is just plain silly. And I think Christians would be a little irked at some of the things it says about Jesus.
- Jesus' crucifixion is not considered an atonement for the sins of humanity. The crucifixion is taught to be an outcome of the fears of religious leaders of the day, who regarded his teachings as a threat to their positions of authority.
- Jesus is considered the human incarnation of "Michael of Nebadon," one of more than 700,000 "Paradise Sons" of God, or "Creator Sons." Jesus is not considered the second person of the Trinity as he is in Christianity. The book refers to the Eternal Son as the second person of the Trinity.
- Jesus was born on Earth through natural means of conception instead of a virgin birth.
- Jesus did not walk on water or perform some of the miracles that are attributed to him in the Bible.
- At the center of the cosmos is the stationary Isle of Paradise—the dwelling place of God—with Paradise being surrounded by "Havona," an eternal universe containing a billion perfect worlds, around which seven incomplete and evolutionary "superuniverses" circle.
- The word "universe" in the book is used to denote a number of different scales of organization. A "superuniverse" is roughly the size of a galaxy or group of galaxies, and the seven superuniverses along with Paradise-Havona are together designated as the "grand universe." A "local universe" is a portion of a superuniverse, with 100,000 local universes being in each superuniverse. Beyond the seven superuniverses, uninhabited "outer space levels" are described. The term "master universe" refers to what in modern usage would be the total universe—all existing matter and space taken as a whole.
- Urantia is said to be located in a remote local universe named "Nebadon," which itself is part of superuniverse number seven, "Orvonton." The physical size of a local universe is not directly stated, but each is said to have up to 10 million inhabited worlds.
Last edited:
Colt
Well-Known Member
In all of your critique of the Bible even you should see that Jesus didn't teach the atonement; the theory that God couldn't forgive unless he saw his Son bleeding on the cross! He never used the word atonement!!!! He never taught that he was a sacrifice!!!! But after Paul's remixed gospel began to influence subsequent gospel writers the bloodless Passover celebration at the last supper turned into blood drinking and flesh eating! BTW, the atonement doctrine is a philosophical insult to the free will of God.
There was the religion OF Jesus, Christianity evolved into a religion ABOUT Jesus. And not all Christians believe those things you listed.
The UB impresses me, its my Bible.
Anyway, as usual your mind is made up and unreachable, you deflected and said nothing about the material I posted.
We have now discovered billions of galaxies just as the UB stated in 1955. The belief that our world is the only inhabited world is silly!
Yazata
Active Member
I'm inclined to agree.
But both of our views seem to implicitly deny the (supposed) truth of religious revelation. (I'll admit that quite openly, I don't believe that any human beings have been granted special privileged access to the secret of the universe.)
If on the other hand, one accepts the reality of religious revelation, as the 'Abrahamic' religions and many theistic Hindus seem to assume, then theology would be the study of the nature of the divine as revealed.
There's also natural theology, a brand of theology that attempts to say things about the divine based on what can be observed and known about events here in physical reality. The first-cause argument, the design argument, the fine-tuning arguments and other arguments of that sort belong to natural theology.
Unlike revealed theology, I'm inclined to give natural theology more credence. It's why I, like Anthony Flew late in his life, find myself drifing in a more deist direction. The biggest problem that I see with it from a religious point of view is that it is actually metaphysics in religious disguise and leads to whatever performs abstract metaphysical functions. It doesn't seem to lead to suitable objects for religious emotions.
Science doesn't impress me as much as it once did. My problem with science is that it seems to beg many of the most interesting questions.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Why should we spend time in thinking about 'what is not' rather than 'what is'?
PureX
Veteran Member
We don't know what is and what isn't. And we can't learn anything until we can finally admit that we don't know.
That's why theology is so important. It helps us deal directly with our unknowing, and how we can explore it with hope and imagination. Art is also very important to us for the same reason.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
When we have not found any evidence in the last 150,000 years for 'what is not', what is the need to imagine its existence? How does hope help? Do you hope that one day your God will reveal himself? Art is irrelevant in this discussion.
PureX
Veteran Member
What evidence were you expecting to be found? Why were you expecting that evidence? Where, when, and how did you look for it?
The thing is that unless you have a very logical and specific expectation of the "evidence" you're looking for, not finding any is just a meaningless inevitability.
PureX
Veteran Member
That's not an answer. WHAT evidence would conclusively establish the existence of God? I can't think of any. If God were hovering in a 'blaze of glory' right in front of me, how could I validate that it is God and not some sort of magician's trick, or an anomaly in my own mind, or some advanced space alien presenting iself in a way it thinks I will more easily grasp? Or some other phenomenon that I can't even guess at? What possible proof of God can there be when God can do or be anything, INCLUDING those alternative possibilities listed above?
If I take an hallucinogenic drug and experience a meeting with God, does the drug prove that it was not really God that I met? Or did the drug simply enable the meeting with the actual, real God? And HOW COULD I TELL WHICH? Both possibilities would present exactly the same "evidence".
There is ALWAYS evidence. The mere fact that we can formulate a question in our minds is evidence that the question is "valid", and therefor so will the answer be if we can discern it. And any information used to formuate the question can also be used as evidence in support of an answer. There is no such condition as "no evidence". That's an illogical delusion that's been adopted by people with the unfortunate and annoying habit of imagining and proclaiming that they are somehow magically 'in charge' of determining what is and is not "valid evidence". And of course they do so base completely on their own ignorant, biased, unassailable conception of "true reality".
Or, the evidence was everywhere, all around you, all that time, and you couldn't see it beause you were too busy dismissing it based on your own biased, ignorant preconception of what reality and truth are.
And how could you possibly tell the difference?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Scientific method: "It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings."
PureX
Veteran Member
Science can only study physical phenomena. God is not a physical phenomenon. So you are demanding what you already know you can't be obtained. Biased much?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, it is not a physical phenomenon. It is an imaginary phenomenon. Then it cannot affect us in any way. Why should one then, worry about it?
PureX
Veteran Member
You don't know what God is, or isn't. And yet here you are pontificating as if you do, dripping with self-righteousness and condescension.
That's not very logical or scientific of you. And in fact, it's very much similar to those who claim they know God and your fate in hell as a disbeliever.
Imagine that!