Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does God have emotions?
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 1 of 17 (486986)
10-26-2008 3:35 PM


I know that according to the Bible, God is an emotional being who likes to be worshipped. However, I would argue with any theist that if God had emotions, he would be awfully biased and subjective, i.e. he wouldn't be the just God the Bible portrays. Emotions are pretty misleading, so a true god wouldn't have emotions but just super intelligence, and everywhere i look i see evidence that if there is god, he doesn't feel emotions but only requires us to conform to the physical laws he created for the universe(i.e. the only rules are don't jump from an airplane without a chute, don't stay in a fire, don't stay under a falling object, etc.). AFAIK science hasn't unearthed laws of nature that punish child molesters or killers. Why are there no such laws if god has emotions? Making thousands of laws that govern every process of the universe, why would god omit to devise laws that punish child molesters through a process that would be dubbed by atheists a natural process/emergent property - like a lightning strike or a heart attack or something similar for everyone that kills a child.
Does God really feel emotions?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein
"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 9:38 AM Agobot has not replied
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 11-01-2008 10:09 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 13 by Greatest I am, posted 11-03-2008 10:06 AM Agobot has not replied
 Message 15 by Fosdick, posted 11-06-2008 7:15 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 17 (487042)
10-27-2008 8:59 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 3 of 17 (487046)
10-27-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agobot
10-26-2008 3:35 PM


Many ignorant people may concede to the point that the "law" of AIDS naturally mutated itself towards the end of which you speak ...
We can refer to such theories as horse shit ....
Before we can begin locating or assigning names and descriptions to these theoretical laws of nature, it would seem fitting to set up an unbiased and objective, testable, demonstration for the existence of "natural emotions" and absolute morality. This may become difficult, as when the "knowledge of good" is introduced to the "knowledge of evil", relativity is the byproduct ...
We are left with some questions ...
* Can science rectify the relativity of morals and ethics, much less the relativity of love and hate, in our world?
* Can science testably demonstrate and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that love or morals have any place in the universe, apart from our hearts and minds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agobot, posted 10-26-2008 3:35 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 10-27-2008 9:57 AM Bailey has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 17 (487049)
10-27-2008 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Bailey
10-27-2008 9:38 AM


Which Way Do We Go?
It is interesting how each of you asks different questions. You ask
"Can Science......" while Agobot asks "Does God.....".
Since this question is in Faith/Belief, I suggest that we presuppose that God does or could exist and then go from there.
God is not, IMHO, merely a product of our minds, although some who I argue with claim that each of us create our own ideas about Him. (I would argue that God created us long before we even had the ability to create/imagine Him but, of course, I cannot prove it.)
Logically, the way that I will approach this question is to ask if God ever needed to have or to at least experience emotions and, if so, what for?
This leads us down the path of asking whether God is too awesome and beyond comprehension to ever be understood or whether God made it possible for us to commune with Him and understand Him based on His becoming like us for that purpose.
If the former, we are likely gods ourselves in that we prefer scientific inquiry to increase our understanding and don't even necessarily need a relationship with said Deity.
If the latter, we are probably talking about the mystery and legend of Jesus Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 9:38 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Stile, posted 10-27-2008 11:16 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 6 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 2:38 PM Phat has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 5 of 17 (487062)
10-27-2008 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
10-27-2008 9:57 AM


Re: Which Way Do We Go?
Phat writes:
Since this question is in Faith/Belief, I suggest that we presuppose that God does or could exist and then go from there.
...
Logically, the way that I will approach this question is to ask if God ever needed to have or to at least experience emotions and, if so, what for?
This leads us down the path of asking whether God is too awesome and beyond comprehension to ever be understood or whether God made it possible for us to commune with Him and understand Him based on His becoming like us for that purpose.
But your first two points do not lead us down this path. You said we may as well assume God exists and go from there. However, if we do this, our next rational point is to assume that God does not affect this universe in any way (out of choice or not). Since there has never been a single verified observation of such. I think what you mean to say is that we should assume God exists and that God has an inherent desire to be a part of our personal lives.
Taking that as our assumption, then your analysis begins to make sense. Of course, you also add in the assumption that God is behind the Bible, and that Jesus Christ is also a part of all this. Perhaps it would be easiest to just assume that all Phat's ideas of God are true, and go from there?
If we're just going to assume that God has emotions and care for us as individuals, then why bother asking the question?
Agobot writes:
AFAIK science hasn't unearthed laws of nature that punish child molesters or killers. Why are there no such laws if god has emotions?
It's quite possible that God has emotions and just doesn't care about this planet, this solar system, or even this universe.
It's also quite possible that God has emotions and cares so much for us that He's leaving us alone on purpose. For some reasons we are simply unable to understand at this time.
I don't find either of those options likely, but they're certainly options that fit with the reality we find and the assumption that God exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 10-27-2008 9:57 AM Phat has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 6 of 17 (487084)
10-27-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
10-27-2008 9:57 AM


Re: Which Way Do We Go?
Phat writes:
It is interesting how each of you asks different questions. You ask
"Can Science......" while Agobot asks "Does God.....".
Since this question is in Faith/Belief, I suggest that we presuppose that God does or could exist and then go from there.
It was my understanding that the discussion in this thread assumes the existence of God.
Tho, are we to assume in this arena that, for all intensive purposes, an unobservable spiritual world exists in conjunction with the observable physical realm?
Agobot's musing offer a brief insight of his own personal, subjective emotions and strategies conjuntively as an overlay of God, His emotions, and His strategies. He then goes on to suggest science as a facet to gleam insight regarding the matter of debate.
Some musings, tho potentially scientific, were offered to stimulate discussion regarding the absolute existence of justice or morals apart from our hearts and minds.
He asks why science has not identified natural laws that incorporate punishment among child molesters, killers, or the likes thereof. Seemingly suggesting that if science hasn't, doesn't, or can't find them, they may not exist.
The question I propose is not whether God's existence should be questioned, but whether there is an absolute code of justice and morality at play in the universe as a whole, as opposed to existing solely within the framework of mans existence.
If justice and moral relativism do not exist apart from governments and personal consciousness for example, it may logically follow that they would display no natural observable pattern elsewhere in the universe.
Let me adjust and again posit ...
* Does justice and moral relativism exist outside of man's heart and mind?
* Can science, or any facet of knowledge, demonstrate in a testable fashion, so as to prove or refute beyond a reasonable doubt, that justice or morals have any place in the universe, apart from our hearts and minds?
* Can science, or any facet of knowledge, rectify the relativity of morals and ethics, much less the relativity of love and hate, in our world?
Phat writes:
Logically, the way that I will approach this question is to ask if God ever needed to have or to at least experience emotions and, if so, what for?
Then do you feel God needs or has needed emotions?
To what end do you feel He needs or has needed them for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 10-27-2008 9:57 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 11-01-2008 5:49 AM Bailey has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 17 (487517)
11-01-2008 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bailey
10-27-2008 2:38 PM


Has God needed Emotions?
Communication with humanity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 2:38 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Bailey, posted 11-01-2008 9:10 AM Phat has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 8 of 17 (487526)
11-01-2008 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
11-01-2008 5:49 AM


Emotions are in your imagination.
Thank you for the reply Phat.
It has been a long time since we've exchanged ...
I was hoping you would respond and I hope all is well in your camp.
Phat writes:
Bailey writes:
Phat writes:
Logically, the way that I will approach this question is to ask if God ever needed to have or to at least experience emotions and, if so, what for?
Then do you feel God needs or has needed emotions?
To what end do you feel He needs or has needed them for?
Communication with humanity
This implies emotion is the language of the God.
In context, to evidence emotions may be to evidence Him.
To His credit, the fact that faith is required as evidence of such a theory fits His profile.
Must we simply better learn the language of emotion before such communication can take place?
In context, it would seem the case.
Wouldn't communication be handled better through spoken word?
Please expound.
Bailey writes:
Let me adjust and again posit ...
* Does justice and moral relativism exist outside of man's heart and mind?
Evidently they do not.
Yet I digress ...
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
* Can science, or any facet of knowledge, demonstrate in a testable fashion, so as to prove or refute beyond a reasonable doubt, that justice or morals have any place in the universe, apart from our hearts and minds?
Science has no place in determining the systematic order of pure conjecture ...
This is to imply it serves its purpose rather well within the confines of the physical world.
* Can science, or any facet of knowledge, rectify the relativity of morals and ethics, much less the relativity of love and hate, in our world?
I'd say not yet, with the exception of fringe science or faith ... this is obvious conjecture.
In conclusion, as science works from effect to cause, it must isolate some worthy evidence of emotion, outside of our imaginations, well before defining, or potentially locating, any corresponding laws that effect the material world.
It follows, as science can observe objective evidence to confirm, or even assert, that emotions exist apart from our imaginations, they may begin to explore, and further define, exactly what emotions are contrived of and their effects within nature.
Being this has not been accomplished; it remains as plausible that emotions are a supernatural force or a reality of the spirit alone.
Henceforth, emotions shall be placed in the napsack with sin, salvation, the God and all other faith based assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 11-01-2008 5:49 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 11-21-2008 11:08 AM Bailey has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 17 (487559)
11-01-2008 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agobot
10-26-2008 3:35 PM


A god without emotion is anything but an omnipotent god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agobot, posted 10-26-2008 3:35 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by obvious Child, posted 11-02-2008 4:01 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 11 by Bailey, posted 11-02-2008 7:04 AM Taz has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 10 of 17 (487566)
11-02-2008 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
11-01-2008 10:09 PM


Perhaps.
Yet if such a being had all emotions, and was limitless, it would not be perfect as it could act in ways that were sinful.
If it had limited emotions, it wouldn't be omnipotent.
A Conundrum we see to have found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 11-01-2008 10:09 PM Taz has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 11 of 17 (487568)
11-02-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
11-01-2008 10:09 PM


Thank you for the reply Taz.
Hope all is well ...
Taz writes:
A god without emotion is anything but an omnipotent god.
Does this imply that a man without emotion is anything but competent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 11-01-2008 10:09 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 11-02-2008 11:46 AM Bailey has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 12 of 17 (487593)
11-02-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bailey
11-02-2008 7:04 AM


Bailey writes:
Does this imply that a man without emotion is anything but competent?
Not at all. All I'm saying is a god that has no emotion or limited emotion is anything but limitless. The moment we say god has no this or that OR god can't do this or that, we've boxed it into some kind of limitation. That's anything but infinite.
I've found this is a problem the religiously motivated have trouble understanding. This is why it's so damn frustrating to present the Euthephro dilemma (question) to a religious person. Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? They almost always answer "a thing is good because god commands it" in order to attribute everything to god. But this implies that there is nothing to prevent god from changing its mind, so tomorrow it's entirely possible that genocide is good. At this point, they usually try to say "but god has already given us his word through the bible, therefore he can't go back on his word..." They have just boxed god into a set of limits! "He can't do this or that" OR "he won't do this or that" implies limitation!!!!.
Added by edit.
Here is an example of a religious (christian) person trying to weasel his way out of this dilemma by claiming that the good is part of the christian god's moral character. I had to laugh when I saw this because he just did something very unchristian. He put god in a box of limitations by saying "god is this and that and it can't ever change..."
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bailey, posted 11-02-2008 7:04 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Bailey, posted 11-06-2008 1:23 PM Taz has not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 13 of 17 (487679)
11-03-2008 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agobot
10-26-2008 3:35 PM


I don’t mind the knowledge of good and evil. It give moral sense and gives us the ability to know God.
It is the reality of evil and good that I mind. Especially the evil realities and woes that we suffer.
If God is a reality, the miracle worker that is, then He should step up.
That or move aside and let, what was the first God anyway, man.
Any miracle worker who wanted relevance with man would be prompted by love to act. Since He does not, we can conclude that This God does not exist.
Therefore God is not a miracle worker if He exists at all. God exists and all He can do is give advise to those who seek Him out.
Then the ball is Man’s hands and it is to us to elect a man as God. As it was in the beginning, it will return to.
That new God will have feelings and emotion. Let us hurry.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agobot, posted 10-26-2008 3:35 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 14 of 17 (487902)
11-06-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
11-02-2008 11:46 AM


Thank you for the reply Taz.
Taz writes:
Bailey writes:
Does this imply that a man without emotion is anything but competent?
Not at all. All I'm saying is a god that has no emotion or limited emotion is anything but limitless.
I concede ... and thank you for the link - lol
The moment we say god has no this or that OR god can't do this or that, we've boxed it into some kind of limitation.
A box otherwise known as Fundamentals ... we know where they lead.
That's anything but infinite.
And, as well, anything other than reasonable & honest ...
Are emotions simply subjective imaginations employed by one another in order to express our thoughts more specifically?
Does anyone feel the reality of emotions are a subjective basis for the existence of something greater than ourselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 11-02-2008 11:46 AM Taz has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 15 of 17 (487948)
11-06-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agobot
10-26-2008 3:35 PM


Agobot writes:
Does God really feel emotions?
Good question. I also wonder if God scratches his nuts in morning and orders out for coffee.

The first lesson of philosophy is that we may all be mistaken. ”Will Durant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agobot, posted 10-26-2008 3:35 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024