Can man communicate with God?

antiskeptic

Gone off topic in another thread...thus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, but the difference between father & son is merely time/experience. But once both are dead, it is very likely that both will have shared next to identical lives, save for cultural changes. While I understand the appeal of the father/son relationship with respect to God/Man, I don't believe it to be a complete analogy. Son can hope to become Father one day, but until then, he cannot know what it is to be a man. Communication is possible, sure, but we have both spoken to children as adults. We both know that this is not truly communicating. Finally, the analogy breaks down further because Man cannot hope to become God and fully understand what it is to be this way. I mean this with no disrespect, I hope, but it sounds more like a Man/Pet relationship, which brings me neatly back to my Lion analogy.

A son can know what it is to be a man whilst remaining a child of a father. The analogy offers positional aspects of the relationship rather than supposing a father/infant relationship where communication is more limited (but by no means non-existant/relevant and certainly one in which the man/pet analogy has no place).

I wouldn't agree that man cannot hope to become God (in the sense that he does obtain like-order but not same-personhood). If goodness is an attribute of God and man has removed from him the ability to choose evil then man has become God in order but not personhood. And if we suppose good communication involves a meeting of minds and a meeting of minds involves a commonality of currency and purpose, then goodness (but one example of currency and purpose shared between God and man) enables good communication.


I agree that analogies only go so far. Which is why there are so many analogies: wife/husband (utter intimacy) sheep/shepherd (trust) fish/fisherman (basis of relationship is grace), servant/master (servanthood not self serving the nature of of God).

iUseVi

Umm...why the hell is this theology drivel in A&A? May as well ask: "can Thor communicate with goldfish?"

Turtwig

iUseVi wrote: »

"can Thor communicate with goldfish?"

Yes, I believe, he can. You can't prove me wrong, so....

@Antiskeptic there is no denying if an Omnipotent God exists he would able to communicate with us. The question is more on how reliable the human brain is - could it distinguish between God and the perfect imposter?

iUseVi

iUseVi wrote: »

"can Thor communicate with goldfish?"

No, but Namor The Submariner can, so Thor could ask him to translate.

It's all well and good to debate the abilities of fictional characters.....

dvpower

Malty_T wrote: »

@Antiskeptic there is no denying if an Omnipotent God exists he would able to communicate with us.

... whereas the current God isn't so good at it.

Turtwig

dvpower wrote: »

... whereas the current God isn't so good at it.

No it's not that He isn't good at it. It's that the imposter God's seem so much better and far more frequent in their activities.

antiskeptic

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes, I believe, he can. You can't prove me wrong, so....

@Antiskeptic there is no denying if an Omnipotent God exists he would able to communicate with us. The question is more on how reliable the human brain is - could it distinguish between God and the perfect imposter?

That's something for another thread - see Empiricism uber alles (which excludes this question on the same grounds we exclude questions which ask could we distinguish between reality and the perfect imposter (eg: we're actually brains in jars)).

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree that analogies only go so far. Which is why there are so many analogies: wife/husband (utter intimacy) sheep/shepherd (trust), fish/fisherman (basis of relationship is grace), servant/master (servanthood not self serving the nature of of God).

The relationship between fisherman and fish is one of "grace"?

How do you think the fish might feel about that?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

The relationship between fisherman and fish is one of "grace"?

How do you think the fish might feel about that?

I see what you mean. The picture is intended to indicate the basis on which man comes to God (in order that he be elevated to God-order status (which, you may or may not agree, is a pretty stupendous thing to be granted)) is the work of God alone.

Man, like a fish landed, contributes nothing by way of assistance, to that event. It is all of God: grace/gratus. For free.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

...man cannot hope to become God...

That's where my following the point of your post ended. Man cannot hope to become god because no god exists - as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the matter. Trying to open debate on the issue of what relationship may exist between your god and man, which can only be done by requesting a forum of atheists start by assuming your god exists, is just bizarre.

Perhaps you could assume that atheist have no belief that god exists in any way shape or form and use that as a platform to launch debate instead?

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's where my following the point of your post ended. Man cannot hope to become god because no god exists - as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the matter. Trying to open debate on the issue of what relationship may exist between your god and man, which can only be done by requesting a forum of atheists start by assuming your god exists, is just bizarre.

I don't see how. Atheists very regularily take up that mantle and seem very comfortable doing so.

Perhaps you could assume that atheist have no belief that god exists in any way shape or form and use that as a platform to launch debate instead?

I have - the Empiricism uber alles thread assumes that and then provides them the empirical proof they need to believe. And takes things from there..

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how. Atheists very regularily take up that mantle and seem very comfortable doing so.

It's a position that theists seem to like to approach the issue from, funnily enough. It's a bit like me posting on the christianity forum and suggesting all posters start by assuming god doesn't exists and let's debate how the bible isn't true from that starting position.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have - the Empiricism uber alles thread assumes that and then provides them the empirical proof they need to believe. And takes things from there..

You seriously think a thread suggesting a god shows itself to the world thereby rendering the world atheist free is what I'm talking about? How is that any different from the above either?

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

Umm...why the hell is this theology drivel in A&A? May as well ask: "can Thor communicate with goldfish?"

Can I apply the same thinking to your posts next time you visit the Christianity forum?

Skrynesaver

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have - the Empiricism uber alles thread assumes that and then provides them the empirical proof they need to believe. And takes things from there..

Fascinated by the above I opened the referenced thread, you presuppose a god of some description (presumably the Abrahamic god as specified by your own chosen variation on the christian death cult) then say that presented with this being, an Atheist would have to use their "god given" reason to accept the existence of this god, therefore this being must exist, this isn't empirical proof, it's not even wrong.

To answer the question you asked, as gods are a human construct we can each carry as meaningful a discussion as it is possible to carry out with the god of our chosen delusion in our own head.

No go back to your lectures and pay attention to them this time.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can I apply the same thinking to your posts next time you visit the Christianity forum?

People frequently do say the same thing when atheists post in the Christianity forum Fanny.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can I apply the same thinking to your posts next time you visit the Christianity forum?

Yes by all means. My thinking is that theology is nonsense. Apply away.

Flamed Diving

iUseVi wrote: »

Umm...why the hell is this theology drivel in A&A? May as well ask: "can Thor communicate with goldfish?"

Do you even know what the other A stands for?

antiskeptic

Skrynesaver wrote: »

you presuppose a god of some description (presumably the Abrahamic god..

Correct..

..then say that presented with this being, an Atheist would have to use their "god given" reason to accept the existence of this god

Assuming the level of empirical evidencing was sufficient, yes - of course. There is no other option.

(Although they wouldn't be aware that their reasoning-regarding-empirical-evidence-as-a-way-to-fact was God-given until after the point where they accepted the existance of God.)

therefore this being must exist, this isn't empirical proof, it's not even wrong.

What constitutes empirical proof if not sufficient empirical evidence? (we're supposing presentation of God before the atheist sufficient empirical evidence)

To answer the question you asked, as gods are a human construct we can each carry as meaningful a discussion as it is possible to carry out with the god of our chosen delusion in our own head.

No go back to your lectures and pay attention to them this time.

Non sequitur/

Rev Hellfire

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Do you even know what the other A stands for?

Angry ?

Skrynesaver

So the entire proof is simply "imagine if..." or a (poor) variation on the ontological proof?

Insofar as it is possible to ask "WWJD?" it is possible to communicate with the mental construct that is god. How is that a non-sequitur it represents my position on the subject and I suspect a few others here.

Flamed Diving

antiskeptic wrote: »

Gone off topic in another thread...thus




A son can know what it is to be a man whilst remaining a child of a father. The analogy offers positional aspects of the relationship rather than supposing a father/infant relationship where communication is more limited (but by no means non-existant/relevant and certainly one in which the man/pet analogy has no place).

I wouldn't agree that man cannot hope to become God (in the sense that he does obtain like-order but not same-personhood). If goodness is an attribute of God and man has removed from him the ability to choose evil then man has become God in order but not personhood. And if we suppose good communication involves a meeting of minds and a meeting of minds involves a commonality of currency and purpose, then goodness (but one example of currency and purpose shared between God and man) enables good communication.


I agree that analogies only go so far. Which is why there are so many analogies: wife/husband (utter intimacy) sheep/shepherd (trust) fish/fisherman (basis of relationship is grace), servant/master (servanthood not self serving the nature of of God).

I think you continue to underestimate my position, perhaps this has been my fault. So I will lay it out.

When I first said:

'If a Lion could talk, we could not understand it'

I meant that God possesses such attributes that the mere notion of both Man and God sharing a common experience is unthinkable. To quickly address Malty's likely response, of course God would have the power to present himself in such a way that a mere mortal could understand, but this seems to me to be a God in sheep's clothing, if you follow.

Therefore, I am placing this stipulation on my meaning of Man cannot know God:

Unless Man can acquire all of the attributes that God possesses (all the omni's), then it may has well be Lion speaking to Man. To be more specific, unless Man becomes God himself, then the idea of such a feeble carbon blob knowing a being of such immense power (as proposed) is preposterous.

To me, likeness/orderness is simply not enough.

KamiKazi

There is no such thing as God, so no.

iUseVi

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Do you even know what the other A stands for?

I don't see what you mean. Agnostics doesn't think god communicates with man else they would not be agnostic. Unless you are talking about something else? Please explain.

Flamed Diving

iUseVi wrote: »

I don't see what you mean. Agnostics doesn't think god communicates with man else they would not be agnostic. Unless you are talking about something else? Please explain.

Sorry, I kind of got pulled into it. My position is that one cannot know whether the unknown exists or not. Kind of obvious really...

Anyway, antiskeptic said that he thought that agnosticism was a belief that you cannot know God, even if he did exist. I think that comes under Agnostic Theism, but decided that I would take on his premise anyway.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can I apply the same thinking to your posts next time you visit the Christianity forum?

lol, snap

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

Yes by all means. My thinking is that theology is nonsense. Apply away.

Touché!

Stercus Accidit

This thread makes no sense.

Zombrex

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

This thread makes no sense.

WITCH!!!

Ghost Buster

Wicknight wrote: »

lol, snap

Surely he would just get infracted or banned for saying things you dont like. Happens all the time.

The Mad Hatter

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Do you even know what the other A stands for?

Arrogance, obviously.

Tigger

ok
1, moderation in christianity has nothing to do with debate in a+a
2,they want to know our hearts is that so wrong i'm glad they respec t us so much and that we interest them so much
3,remember when answering these threads wwjd should always be answered with wwtd
4,tucker exists and can communicate with man, sometimes even with women.

Dades

What? Worst thread EVER.

Flamed Diving

Tucker Max is a ****ing idiot. Literature for jocks.

Tigger

i thought i was on your ignore list?
:cool:

Flamed Diving

Tigger wrote: »

i thought i was on your ignore list?
:cool:

You were, but since I was made a moderator recently, I thought it best to remove all of those on it.

One of the negative aspects of the job, I guess.

Osgoodisgood

iUseVi wrote: »

Umm...why the hell is this theology drivel in A&A? May as well ask: "can Thor communicate with goldfish?"

I know a guy who swears that sometimes the picture of his long dead father talks to him. Really. And he told me this stone cold sober and asked me what to make of it. I told him he just misses his dad.

What I really think of course is that he's projecting because he feels better and more confident when he has his made-up authority figure to guide and comfort him. I also think he's a bit nuts and that he'd do well to keep that little story to himself.

And I have no idea why we are discussing this here.

iUseVi

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

I know a guy who swears that sometimes the picture of his long dead father talks to him. Really. And he told me this stone cold sober and asked me what to make of it. I told him he just misses his dad.

What I really think of course is that he's projecting because he feels better and more confident when he has his made-up authority figure to guide and comfort him. I also think he's a bit nuts and that he'd do well to keep that little story to himself.

And I have no idea why we are discussing this here.

Indeed, I know many people who think dead relatives talk to them and watch them. Also a person who think tree and stones talk. Which is why it is so easy for me to dismiss a god talking to a person, it has no more credibility.

Flamed Diving

Should agnosticism be split into a separate forum? People seem to be getting confused.

iUseVi

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Should agnosticism be split into a separate forum? People seem to be getting confused.

Care to explain? Anyway, those who are not agnostic can't be expected to tack disclaimers onto everything they say.

Flamed Diving

iUseVi wrote: »

Care to explain? Anyway, those who are not agnostic can't be expected to tack disclaimers onto everything they say.

No, but people again seem to be forgetting what the second A in A&A stands for. Agnosticism is a fairly broad church (pun intended), and can include the notion that a god/s may exist, but Man cannot know them. The fact that people are asking why this thread is in A&A is like someone going to the Nature & Bird Watching forum and asking why people are talking about non-bird issues. If people want to treat this like an atheist-only club, so be it. Perhaps an agnostic sub-forum should be created.

Ickle Magoo

But this thread is called "Can man communicate with God"....

Agnostics think gods existence is unknowable, don't they? If god could communicate with man or visa versa then it's knowable and theism?

iUseVi

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, but people again seem to be forgetting what the second A in A&A stands for. Agnosticism is a fairly broad church (pun intended), and can include the notion that a god/s may exist, but Man cannot know them. The fact that people are asking why this thread is in A&A is like someone going to the Nature & Bird Watching forum and asking why people are talking about non-bird issues. If people want to treat this like an atheist-only club, so be it. Perhaps an agnostic sub-forum should be created.

I don't understand. I wouldn't have thought an agnostic to believe god speaks to people? Since (Wo)man cannot not know god; a god speaking to people would kind of ruin that, no? Any god that spoke to people would be decidedly known, not unknown, bad english but I hope you know what I mean.

What precisely do you think an agnostic has to discuss on this matter?

Zillah

Anger & Atheism Forum
"Because its a binary proposition you equivocating tosspots"


:pac:

Flamed Diving

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But this thread is called "Can man communicate with God"....

Agnostics think gods existence is unknowable, don't they? If god could communicate with man or visa versa then it's knowable and theism?

Like I said, broad church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Flamed Diving

iUseVi wrote: »

I don't understand. I wouldn't have thought an agnostic to believe god speaks to people? Since (Wo)man cannot not know god; a god speaking to people would kind of ruin that, no? Any god that spoke to people would be decidedly known, not unknown, bad english but I hope you know what I mean.

What precisely do you think an agnostic has to discuss on this matter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Lazy, but easier than me writing a load.

iUseVi

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Lazy, but easier than me writing a load.

Missed my point though. If god spoke to people this would not be agnosticism, in either the theist or atheist versions.

Ickle Magoo

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Like I said, broad church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Perhaps agnosticism should have a forum of it's own then because I think it's slightly ridiculous to expect people posting on a forum dedicated to atheism to ensure every post also covers the possibilities for someone who is essentially a non-religious theist.

NB Your link still says it's unknowable so my initial point stands...

Flamed Diving

iUseVi wrote: »

Missed my point though. If god spoke to people this would not be agnosticism, in either the theist or atheist versions.

Well, one can believe that a deity exists, whilst simultaneously believing that knowing that a god exists is impossible. The same can be applied to certain properties of such deities. Just read the damn article!

Ickle Magoo

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, one can believe that a deity exists, whilst simultaneously believing that knowing that a god exists is impossible. The same can be applied to certain properties of such deities. Just read the damn article!

How do you communicate with an unknowable god?

iUseVi

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, one can believe that a deity exists, whilst simultaneously believing that knowing that a god exists is impossible. The same can be applied to certain properties of such deities. Just read the damn article!

I read the damn article! I think we are not on same train of thought. My point is that is god were to communicate to you, say (s)he said "I love fish-sticks", then such a god would not be unknowable? Yes? This is my point. Nothing else. If you accept this then this is NOT agnosticism. And the article has nothing to do with this point I'm making, its a description of agnostic theism. Which would not allow god to communicate, since then that would be plain theism.

Flamed Diving

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Perhaps agnosticism should have a forum of it's own then because I think it's slightly ridiculous to expect people posting on a forum also dedicated to atheism to ensure every post also includes a thinking of someone who is essentially a non-religious theist.

NB Your link still says it's unknowable so my initial point stands...

I really wish people would read that tiny, basic article. According to agnostic theism, one could be a Christian, only believing in the existence of God and of Christ's divinity, and still state that all of it is unknowable as a truth claim, including the notion of God communicating with you.

I don't see the problem some of you have, actually. The mods here seem to run a fairly open house, compared to the Christianity forum, and I think it to be a wise move. Why should A&A be afraid of theocratic thinking? At least here we are able to criticise it without getting infracted.