Concepts of God (The nature of a \'Creator\')
Under "Will, Consciousness, Identity":-TONY: I have seen nothing in the biological processes that explains the brains ability to do all of the things that it does. Nor have I seen anything at our current level of understanding that can come remotely close to explaining consciousness, emotion, or experience.-TONY: ...for those with any type of belief in a archetypical deity that does not fit precisely with the norm, getting deep into any details or reasoning for a particular belief generally only drives the subject off topic. (That's not a criticism of anyone here, it is just my general experience.)-DAVID: Religion has left us with fairly rigid concepts of a 'greater power', one that is too anthropomorphic. More quantum less manlike is my guess.-As the only non-theist in this particular triangle, let me throw a few thoughts into the arena. We all agree that human consciousness is inexplicable. We all agree that if God exists, he must be conscious. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, then, to assume that God's consciousness and human consciousness must have something in common. With regard to human consciousness, David has already told us that authors "all return to the same quantum suppositions or to holographic representations based on quantum theory". Now it's a "more quantum less manlike" God. If we forget the bearded father figure and concentrate solely on mind, it would seem that God AND man are quantum phenomena. This might also help Matt to understand why some of us dislike the word "supernatural". Whatever exists, including quantum phenomena, has to be part of Nature, and so if psychic phenomena are real, they simply belong to those many aspects of Nature we do not understand. Of course nobody understands quantum theory anyway, but if this is the world of the mind ... human and divine ... it is not a matter of anthropomorphizing God. Instead we return to the biblical claim that God made man in his own image. Bingo! The consciousness of God is the same quantum phenomenon as the consciousness of man, and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that all the elements that constitute the human mind ... reason, emotion, memory, imagination etc. ... are not reflections of the elements generated by God's mind. After all, you can't have consciousness without being conscious of SOMETHING and without reacting to that SOMETHING. So may I suggest that religions might not be that far out in their "anthropomorphic" concepts. I wouldn't go along with the idealized versions myself, but it's always consoling to think that he's bound to have a goodly ration of love and humour to balance the less attractive qualities. If he (she/it) exists.
Concepts of God
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 22:50 (4468 days ago) @ dhw
If we forget the bearded father figure and concentrate solely on mind, it would seem that God AND man are quantum phenomena. This might also help Matt to understand why some of us dislike the word "supernatural". Whatever exists, including quantum phenomena, has to be part of Nature, and so if psychic phenomena are real, they simply belong to those many aspects of Nature we do not understand. > > Instead we return to the biblical claim that God made man in his own image. Bingo! The consciousness of God is the same quantum phenomenon as the consciousness of man, and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that all the elements that constitute the human mind ... reason, emotion, memory, imagination etc. ... are not reflections of the elements generated by God's mind. After all, you can't have consciousness without being conscious of SOMETHING and without reacting to that SOMETHING. So may I suggest that religions might not be that far out in their "anthropomorphic" concepts. I wouldn't go along with the idealized versions myself, but it's always consoling to think that he's bound to have a goodly ration of love and humour to balance the less attractive qualities. If he (she/it) exists.--Ironically, this is pretty much the same point I have been at for a while now. There was a book that I linked Matt a while back called 'Genesis, Zen, and Quantum Physics' that discusses some of the misunderstandings that come about because of mis-translations. For example, it doesn't say that Adam was made from dirt, it says he was taken from a multitude.(The word translated dust is the same word translated as many, multitude, or an uncountable number)It doesn't say that he was created, it says that he was 'fattened' or 'filled up'. As applied to this conversation, what was he filled up with? It says the 'breath' of God, which in Hebraic the breath was considered the essence, and was seen as a composite of what made a person what they were. So, in very well could be that the 'breath of God' being referred to that 'fattened' man was in fact consciousness. It would make sense then, in that respect, that our own mental processes were a shadow of Gods. All of this can be said without any reference to the old bearded man or anything of the sort.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Concepts of God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 22:55 (4468 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Incidentally, this is also hinted at in the wording that they used. Man was only referred to as 'man' at first. It wasn't until later that Adam was used as a proper name. Could this be a hint that prior to that, he wasn't self aware?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Concepts of God
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 17:58 (4467 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Incidentally, this is also hinted at in the wording that they used. Man was only referred to as 'man' at first. It wasn't until later that Adam was used as a proper name. Could this be a hint that prior to that, he wasn't self aware?-My favorite Jewish scholar of the Hebrew translates 'Audum' differently. Yes, it eventually became Adam, but it is really a pleural word and by comparing it with other entries that establishes it as pleural, he feels the word should really be translated as 'mankind or humankind'.-In the second version of the creation is the verse to which you refer in your previous entry: "And the Lord God formed the human of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a living soul." (2:7) Specifically dust and the breathing of a soul (neshama). The only tranlations I trust are directly from Hebrew scholars.-I think you are construing too much from the translations you are using . My source is "In the Beginnng Of" by Judah Landa, 2004. He does relate his translation to current cosmology.
Concepts of God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 23:22 (4467 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Incidentally, this is also hinted at in the wording that they used. Man was only referred to as 'man' at first. It wasn't until later that Adam was used as a proper name. Could this be a hint that prior to that, he wasn't self aware?-> David: My favorite Jewish scholar of the Hebrew translates 'Audum' differently. Yes, it eventually became Adam, but it is really a pleural word and by comparing it with other entries that establishes it as pleural, he feels the word should really be translated as 'mankind or humankind'. > -That is exactly what I said..."Man" can be plural or singular, you know. I should have been more clear though. Yes, the original word was plural, and only later was used in the singular as a proper name. - > David: In the second version of the creation is the verse to which you refer in your previous entry: "And the Lord God formed the human of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a living soul." (2:7) Specifically dust and the breathing of a soul (neshama). The only tranlations I trust are directly from Hebrew scholars. > -> I think you are construing too much from the translations you are using . My source is "In the Beginnng Of" by Judah Landa, 2004. He does relate his translation to current cosmology.- My source is the "Mechanical Translation of Genesis" by Jeff Brenner. I don't TRUST any of them. Not entirely. I generally cross reference to check for inconsistencies and then investigate them. There are even a couple of translators that I routinely contact for clarification on specific phrases. - As far as my query over whether or not humans had self-awareness prior to that event. I don't know. It was a question.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.