I'd say it fits our current definition of acausal as it operates without respect to time or space. This doesn't make it divine, but I think it illustrates the fact that our ape brains are ill-equipped to handle things on either a very large or very small scale and our notions of both time and space are flawed. I agree that it in no way is indicative of any sort of deity, and in fact, think it throws considerable doubt on the necessity of using a deity to explain the universe. To borrow a phrase, it may be that the existence of anything at all is simply a wrinkle in time.
I knew that too. and I saw God in the 1956 movie the ten commandments. he was a burning bush! btw I think people also call a miracle anything that is a happy event for them. Like many parents call birth a miracle. My beliefs are what the others said actually in answer to your question. btw SIB, I wanna ask you, what makes you believe in a supreme creator being like a god?
I'm of the suspicion that the universe is unpredictable and chaotic in nature, which truly is beyond our ken, and theories like the multiverse are ways to give "reason" to arbitrary and random events. But then, I dig Lovecraft
Actually, the family recipe is a very good analogy. I remember reading an article by a psychologist in New Scientist, she wrote about a family recipe handed down over 3 genrations for roast ham. It involved both ends of the ham being cut off before cooking, which she one day asked her mum about. Her mum had no answer except it's what her mum did. When the psychologist asked her gran, she told her both ends of the ham were cut off because she had a small oven. Both the psychologist and her mother believed cutting the ends off the ham improved the flavour. I think this is a good illustration of human learning, and "lucky pants syndrome" confirmation bias. The article was about the difference between human and chimp learning - humans learn by rote; they see a process and copy it. Chimps learn by seeing a result and figuring out their own process. Intuitively, you'd think the chimp's way of learning is more "intelligent", but for social animals the rote method would bring greater technological gains in a shorter time period. I think this is the basis for superstition, and therefore religious thought. Praying, faith healing, chi; all these kinds of beliefs play right into our confirmation bias blind spot.
A seperate point - lots of people talk to gods/demons/ancestors/aliens/spirits/angels/their car/pets who cannot understand human speech/temperamental photocopiers/whatever. Some of those people have a mental illness, but it does not necessarily make you mad. I think it depends both on society's acceptance of difference, and the awareness and volition with which it is done. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1904658091"]Uncle Ramsey's Little Book of Demons: The Positive Advantages of the Personification of Life's Problems:Amazon:Books[/ame]
But no recipe goes unchanged, does it? For instance, do you eat pork or shellfish? What day is your sabbath? God has gone from a cranky spirit in a box to an all-pervading creator of galaxies. If the act of divine revelation were true, why is there no consistency in religious experiences throughout the history of humanity? Why would God's message need to be written down by men if God can speak to us directly?
That's the kind of old-school I can respect Jewish theology makes a lot more sense to me than its offshoots. Apart from it being far more consistent from a philosophical perspective, I don't get how other Abrahamic faiths can justify changing the word of God as they go along
Well from a purely mythos viewpoint the Christian take is that God actually came down in person and corrected the mistakes they were making from the first time around* *gross oversimplification because I am on an iPhone
Yes, because he thought a Galilean carpenter would get the message across more effectively than a burning bush or, I dont know, writing the errata in the sky. And then he had Jesus 'die for our sins'...which makes no sense. It's a pretty soundbite, but beyond that...
I like logic. As a kid all the things around me, things I read, things I heard or learned, all made sense eventually. Everything I wanted to know about became logical at one point or another, but I could never see the logic behind there being a god that watched over us. Especially not because as a kid you get taught that God is a nice guy and doesn't want people to suffer. But then you start to learn about what people are capable of (bad things) and it makes you wonder why God allowed people to be like that in the first place. If people can be evil and God will punish you for being evil, then why did he make those people evil in the first place? Even when people aren't born evil, but become evil along the way through certain experiences. Why did these experiences occur at all? If God is omnipotent, why does he let Satan do as he pleases? God should be able to banish all evil from the world, so everyone could be happy. But he doesn't because....? What is the point of it all? Heaven or Hell? That's a bunch of crap, because people have a preordained destiny for either Heaven or Hell. So why torment us when he should already know who's going to Hell and who's going to Heaven. God works in mysterious ways.... Sounds like God doesn't give a crap and is just toying with people because he's bored and lonely. Or perhaps God is a man-made fictitious supernatural father figure to serve the purpose of filling in the gaps. With gaps being things we don't understand. It's funny because the more people fill in these gaps, the more we question the existence of God. With the way I think about things, there was never any chance for me to believe in a God like that. I was preordained to be atheist if you will. And apart from just thinking it, when I see people praying to God it just feels so very wrong.
Well if He were to speak to us directly, it would be rather hard to remember the entire Bible wouldn't it? Someone had to write it down lol. I eat whatever I want btw.
In what manner? It was recognized even than that part of the laws were cultural, not religious. I.e. not divine in nature. I haven't followed this discussion from the start so I don't know what aspect you were talking about.
Recognised by whom? As for big logical flaws, the devil doesn't really make any sense, the pope gets to decide if limbo is still real or not, you get let off for indulgences if you follow his social media etc. I'm not saying that Judaism makes a whole lot of sense, but it does seem a bit more self-aware and consistent.
You're right of course, but I think referring to God as "He" is to do more with outdated tradition from a male dominated society where women were second-class citizens than anything else. That and I always found referring to a deity as "it" to always be really quite impersonal. I don't think anyone keeps them all anymore - you know, the whole burnt offerings, getting the women folk to leave the house for their seven days of menstruation then getting them to atone for their uncleanliness, not marking the skin with ink or dye, not wearing clothes made of several woven fabrics (I think that was roughly right), etc. It would get impractical real fast. For me though, the thing I always wanted to ask those in the theistic crowd (again, me being agnostic) is why they felt their particular faith/deity was the one for them over all others?
The people themselves, as well as God. Paraphrasing here, but God gave the jews some commandments that he thought were important. The rest were laws of moses. For example, women were not allowed to wear pants, or you were not allowed to cook a goat in its mothers milk. Non theological stuff that did not come from God, but Moses and his merry men. There were penalties for that. That is why God said 'what you uphold here, will be upheld in heaven'. From a 'legalistic' point of view, that one sentence was important. Suppose someone was condemned to death for violating one of the things that were specifically moseic law. It was not wrong against God's laws. Therefore, the person performing the execution would violate the 'thou shalt not murder' commandment. However, God said that he'd uphold the judgement and therefore executing someone for violating moseic law was not murder. That clause was (supposedly) added by God specifically to allow moseic law to be added on top of the word of God. Without it, that would never have been possible. And that is why Christians are not required to adhere to moseic law as well. We (non Jewish descent) never belonged to the tribe of moses, so that part of the law is not applicable.
