Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 12:00:04 GMT
FilmFlaneur
My view on the first point you raise is that if there are monotheistic religions whose Gods change nature then those religions have essentially committed bad editing and mistakes and have made God do things against her nature (remember that these religions emphasise that their gods are all-powerful, omniscient, perfect etc.). For example, if a religion claims that its God is perfect and then simultaneously depicts god that either regrets, becomes emotional or changes his nature then such a religion is making itself inconsistent and refutable. On a side note, the God of Hinduism (Brahman) maintains that God is a state of permanence and is 100% unchangeable. That said Hinduism or Vedanta itself has 1000s of contradictions which make it refutable.
As for the second point you raise, it is possible for you to think of a God who changes his nature. But the changes that he is supposed to make should have a logical basis. Almost all religions that claim to be monotheistic such as Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Hare Krishna, Baha'I and Zoroastrianism have not just monotheistic god but also omniscient god. While I personally do not place a lot of merit in omnipotence-paradox, all these religions commit many other mistakes that make their God go against his/her nature. In one my posts I said even if these contradictory religions may have portrayed Gods doing all kinds of things contrary to their nature (which their adherents do no accept), we will discuss more according to certain attributes that are generally attached to monotheistic God- Omniscient, all-powerful, perfect etc.
I do apologise if I didn't make it clear enough that I want to discuss monotheistic Gods in accordance with generally held nature of monotheistic gods for vast majority of real monotheists. While religions may be different, the attributes of their Gods are not much different.
But aren't human characteristics (or anthropomorphism) just a 'system' of sorts, i.e. an organising structure of identities, co operating elements in and of themselves working through to a way and end? Away from this consideration it might be more accurate to deem a reality which worked without divine guidance and without reason or deliberation, more of a system in the way you mean, than a purported deity whose human-like subjectivity, rage, jealousy, love vanity & etc might be unsystematic for reasons all of its own which we cannot know.
Yeah, but more usually you attach emotions such as love, affection, goodness, sadness with human traits and traits such as lack of emotion and sticking to system with computers. of course computers can have bugs and do weird things.
This is an interesting point of speculation to which I will make two observations. Since you above mention of not hearing of a god which can change its nature (assuming I read you the right way), then this does not necessarily mean that there cannot be gods which can in fact change themselves in this way.
Secondly I might also add that if I think of God who cannot change His nature, then I can also think of a god which can, and so which one might say would be the grander, greater of the two.
Secondly I might also add that if I think of God who cannot change His nature, then I can also think of a god which can, and so which one might say would be the grander, greater of the two.
My view on the first point you raise is that if there are monotheistic religions whose Gods change nature then those religions have essentially committed bad editing and mistakes and have made God do things against her nature (remember that these religions emphasise that their gods are all-powerful, omniscient, perfect etc.). For example, if a religion claims that its God is perfect and then simultaneously depicts god that either regrets, becomes emotional or changes his nature then such a religion is making itself inconsistent and refutable. On a side note, the God of Hinduism (Brahman) maintains that God is a state of permanence and is 100% unchangeable. That said Hinduism or Vedanta itself has 1000s of contradictions which make it refutable.
As for the second point you raise, it is possible for you to think of a God who changes his nature. But the changes that he is supposed to make should have a logical basis. Almost all religions that claim to be monotheistic such as Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Hare Krishna, Baha'I and Zoroastrianism have not just monotheistic god but also omniscient god. While I personally do not place a lot of merit in omnipotence-paradox, all these religions commit many other mistakes that make their God go against his/her nature. In one my posts I said even if these contradictory religions may have portrayed Gods doing all kinds of things contrary to their nature (which their adherents do no accept), we will discuss more according to certain attributes that are generally attached to monotheistic God- Omniscient, all-powerful, perfect etc.
I do apologise if I didn't make it clear enough that I want to discuss monotheistic Gods in accordance with generally held nature of monotheistic gods for vast majority of real monotheists. While religions may be different, the attributes of their Gods are not much different.
But aren't human characteristics (or anthropomorphism) just a 'system' of sorts, i.e. an organising structure of identities, co operating elements in and of themselves working through to a way and end? Away from this consideration it might be more accurate to deem a reality which worked without divine guidance and without reason or deliberation, more of a system in the way you mean, than a purported deity whose human-like subjectivity, rage, jealousy, love vanity & etc might be unsystematic for reasons all of its own which we cannot know.
Yeah, but more usually you attach emotions such as love, affection, goodness, sadness with human traits and traits such as lack of emotion and sticking to system with computers. of course computers can have bugs and do weird things.