Communication with the divine

[pmckean]

There's no such thing as a god. Well, I don't think so, anyway.

But if there was, would we be able to communicate with Him in any meaningful way?

I've heard some secular arguments against the existence of a god that ask why he doesn't just hop down off his cloud and come say 'Hi', but I'm just not sure such a thing would be possible.

I have a dog, and a very alert and bright little dog she is, too, but our ability to communicate with each other is very limited. When I drive my car, I'm not sure she knows I'm driving it. Although she resides in my house, I'm not sure she knows it's an artificial structure built by other humans. She can pick out only the merest snatches of human conversation - the odd key word, but not grammar. Humans and dogs are poles apart, intellectually, and it's impossible for us to impart sophisticated concepts to them.

So, wouldn't some hyperdimensional, all-powerful, superbeing capable of creating the very fabric of existence be so utterly different and complex that we could not hope to communicate with it, or, perhaps, even catch more than glimmer of it's existence?

[westprog]

There's no such thing as a god. Well, I don't think so, anyway.

But if there was, would we be able to communicate with Him in any meaningful way?

I've heard some secular arguments against the existence of a god that ask why he doesn't just hop down off his cloud and come say 'Hi', but I'm just not sure such a thing would be possible.

I have a dog, and a very alert and bright little dog she is, too, but our ability to communicate with each other is very limited. When I drive my car, I'm not sure she knows I'm driving it. Although she resides in my house, I'm not sure she knows it's an artificial structure built by other humans. She can pick out only the merest snatches of human conversation - the odd key word, but not grammar. Humans and dogs are poles apart, intellectually, and it's impossible for us to impart sophisticated concepts to them.

So, wouldn't some hyperdimensional, all-powerful, superbeing capable of creating the very fabric of existence be so utterly different and complex that we could not hope to communicate with it, or, perhaps, even catch more than glimmer of it's existence?

I find that these threads tend to drift into "There is no God, and if there were he wouldn't be like that". However, you don't make your dog. You don't design ants. If God made human beings, he's able to make them so that they are able to gain understanding of him.

[Delvo]

The dog can't understand everything humans think of, but humans can certainly understand the level of thought that dogs can have. So we communicate with them at their level instead of ours. God could communicate with us at our level instead of his.

[Freethinker]

To me, that's just carrying the "God of the gaps" concept to the extreme. Sure, you can postulate a god that wouldn't be capable of communicating with us. I can't provide any evidence that such a god doesn't exist, but that isn't the god described by any religion. We quickly get to the point where none of the gods proposed by humans exist, and any god that could exist is unknowable to us and unable to communicate with us. No point spending any further effort on it.

[Jimbo07]

The dog can't understand everything humans think of, but humans can certainly understand the level of thought that dogs can have. So we communicate with them at their level instead of ours. God could communicate with us at our level instead of his.

Nailed.

A limited communication is still a communication. We can communicate with dogs, it's just not a very rich experience (rewarding to both, yes, but not rich). In fact, we can communicate with ants, if only to recognize how their stimuli work and make poisons for them to take back to the hill.

For a communication with a God, there would have to be some way for a physical message to be sent, no matter how garbled. I suspect that it wouldn't be words in a desert tribe's book... ;)

[pmckean]

Nailed.

A limited communication is still a communication. We can communicate with dogs, it's just not a very rich experience (rewarding to both, yes, but not rich). In fact, we can communicate with ants, if only to recognize how their stimuli work and make poisons for them to take back to the hill.

For a communication with a God, there would have to be some way for a physical message to be sent, no matter how garbled. I suspect that it wouldn't be words in a desert tribe's book... ;)

I agree, kind of, but when I communicate with my dog, I'm trying to create a sloppy intersection of my mode of communication with hers. The truth is, I don't really understand my dog's communications, even though I'm guessing that hers aren't quite as nuanced as mine. So, I badly communicate my intentions and sometimes, somehow she understands that I want her to come out of the garden. Fundamentally, though, we're on different wavelengths and it's a problem for both parties.

I may not have religion, but I live with someone who is very religious, and they are absolutely certain that big G communicates with them personally. So, she wakes in the morning with one word screaming itself in her head, and this word ends up occurring throughout the day in statistically unlikely numbers (allegedly). It ends up having some enormous meaning for the day, assisting her with what she believes is God's plan for her.

Sounds crazy. It IS crazy, but I've heard it from lots of them, and I believe it's consistent with my central thesis; that anything capable of being God may just be so advanced that interaction between us and it would be akin to communicating inaccurately with a family pet.

Perhaps a dog is too close to provide an example. Could we communicate with a fly despite being a massively advanced organism in comparison to it?

[Jimbo07]

I agree, kind of, but when I communicate with my dog, I'm trying to create a sloppy intersection of my mode of communication with hers. The truth is, I don't really understand my dog's communications, even though I'm guessing that hers aren't quite as nuanced as mine. So, I badly communicate my intentions and sometimes, somehow she understands that I want her to come out of the garden. Fundamentally, though, we're on different wavelengths and it's a problem for both parties.

Yes, and despite obedience school leads us to disturbing the neighbours by hollering out the back door! ;)


I may not have religion, but I live with someone who is very religious, and they are absolutely certain that big G communicates with them personally. So, she wakes in the morning with one word screaming itself in her head, and this word ends up occurring throughout the day in statistically unlikely numbers (allegedly). It ends up having some enormous meaning for the day, assisting her with what she believes is God's plan for her.

So in this case, the dream is the communication path? I've often wondered if God was communicating to us through dreams? More worrisome to me is that, if so, how could I distinguish this from my own imagination?


that anything capable of being God may just be so advanced that interaction between us and it would be akin to communicating inaccurately with a family pet.


But again, there's a closed communication loop, no matter how awkward.


Perhaps a dog is too close to provide an example. Could we communicate with a fly despite being a massively advanced organism in comparison to it?

But as has been pointed out, at some stage this ceases to resemble the Gods put forward by those same humans (we, after all, being created in His own image)...

[Beerina]

Pleas to all the people claiming they speak with God (or aliens, for that matter) to please ask God what the 3 trillionth digit of PI, base 37, is, have always fallen on deaf ears.

[I Ratant]

The dog can't understand everything humans think of, but humans can certainly understand the level of thought that dogs can have. So we communicate with them at their level instead of ours. God could communicate with us at our level instead of his.
.
If he's been doing that, he's one vicious sumbitch!

[pmckean]

Pleas to all the people claiming they speak with God (or aliens, for that matter) to please ask God what the 3 trillionth digit of PI, base 37, is, have always fallen on deaf ears.

This is exactly what logical, skeptical people always say, but my point is that any entity capable of assuming the mantle of a God may not be able to bring itself down to a level where direct, comprehensible communication with the likes of us is possible, no more than we can tell a fly where to..., well, fly.

But as has been pointed out, at some stage this ceases to resemble the Gods put forward by those same humans (we, after all, being created in His own image)...

Yes, but I've been liberally imagining a God as an entity capable of creating the Universe in which we reside - all of time and space. Not the Christian God that makes women out of ribs etc.

[Roboramma]

I agree, kind of, but when I communicate with my dog, I'm trying to create a sloppy intersection of my mode of communication with hers. The truth is, I don't really understand my dog's communications, even though I'm guessing that hers aren't quite as nuanced as mine. That's because we have a very imperfect understanding of dogs - we aren't dogs, we don't know what role scent plays in their communications, for instance, or have a perfect, or intuitive, sense of their body language, nor they of ours.

Still we are able to communicate - not ideas or thoughts that they are incapable of having, but things that they are capable of understanding, definitely.

The problem is, the analogy isn't perfect. God, as the christians see it, does have a perfect understanding of human beings, and so would be able to communicate with us on our level - better, in fact, than we do.

Now, it's possible to concieve of a god that doesn't have a perfect understanding of humans, but I don't see what the point would be, unless you were discussing the implications of that god with someone who actually believed in it.

[Roboramma]

Yes, but I've been liberally imagining a God as an entity capable of creating the Universe in which we reside - all of time and space. Not the Christian God that makes women out of ribs etc.
Well, if it created the universe, and it's a hyper-intelligent being (there, I just added an attribute), it should be able to spend the time to study us and our communications to the point that it's entirely capable of engaging us on our level.
Of course, maybe you don't posit that intelligence. But again, if we're not talking about a god that anyone believes in, what's the point of this conversation?

[pmckean]

Well, if it created the universe, and it's a hyper-intelligent being (there, I just added an attribute), it should be able to spend the time to study us and our communications to the point that it's entirely capable of engaging us on our level.
Of course, maybe you don't posit that intelligence. But again, if we're not talking about a god that anyone believes in, what's the point of this conversation?

Well, there are God myths common to most religions and there's very little that can be agreed between them, but one of the few areas of commonality is that God made the universe.

So this is a really a thought experiment. What IF that was true, and the rest was just ritual window dressing around something that we couldn't possibly understand. How would a God communicate with us if there really was an intelligent designer, in the secular sense of the term.

I'm not sure that a hyper-intelligent being would be capable of understanding or communicating with us. We're hyper-intelligent compared to a fly, but we just don't have a meaningful dialogue yet with our buzzy little friends.

[tek]

I'm not sure that a hyper-intelligent being would be capable of understanding or communicating with us. We're hyper-intelligent compared to a fly, but we just don't have a meaningful dialogue yet with our buzzy little friends.

I don't know what communication mechanisms flies use, but I suspect we could probably chemically emulate them. The real limitation is not the boundary between our communication mechanisms, but the actual limitations of fly language and understanding. The more actual language of the "inferior animal," the more we can communicate with it; all the way up to gorillas with sign language and abstract concepts, or dolphins with underwater keyboards. The gulf between species means little; seems to me the real difference is the capabilities of each species. The problem would not scale to us.

And in any event, we can certainly make our presence known until you get very low on the intelligence scale indeed. Even the fly can recognize us as an organism. The invisibility issue is even more intractable than the communication.

[pmckean]

Tek,

To a God, could we not appear as limited in our forms of communication and understanding as a fly does to us?

If you wanted to give a fly guidance, you couldn't provide a direct instruction in fly-speak, but between flies there may be some quite nuanced communications. Well, there may be...

No, normally all I want a fly to do is to fly out of the window, so I close the door, open the window, perhaps pull down the blinds to nudge it in the general direction I want it to go in - I manipulate the physical environment in which the fly finds itself so that I make it do what I want. Or I squish it.

The fly may know I exist, but it knows little of me, and to it, I work in mysterious ways.

[six7s]

...my point is that any entity capable of assuming the mantle of a God may not be able to bring itself down to a level where direct, comprehensible communication with the likes of us is possibleUmmm... are these (hypothetical?) gods omniscient, or not? :confused:

no more than we can tell a fly where to..., well, fly.Those who understand that flies are attracted to light AND have the ability to alter the light levels of a particular environment can steer flies...

If these gods that you allude to are so dumb that they can't figure out how to communicate ideas to us via anything other than mysterious waysTM (R) (C), why ascribe them with the status of a god?

[pmckean]

Ummm... are these (hypothetical?) gods omniscient, or not? :confused:

Those who understand that flies are attracted to light AND have the ability to alter the light levels of a particular environment can steer flies...

If these gods that you allude to are so dumb that they can't figure out how to communicate ideas to us via anything other than mysterious waysTM (R) (C), why ascribe them with the status of a god?

Hmm, well we're mostly not dumb, and our ways must seem mysterious to most of the other creatures on this planet. The lowlier the creature, the more mysterious we must be.

I think my major point is that a super-advanced entity powerful enough to create universes may have as little chance of communicating with us as we have with it. Regrettably, most (if not all) of the posters in this thread seem to disagree. :-(

Therefore, I'll shut up and try and think of something less inane for my next thread!

[Jimbo07]

So this is a really a thought experiment. What IF that was true, and the rest was just ritual window dressing around something that we couldn't possibly understand. How would a God communicate with us if there really was an intelligent designer, in the secular sense of the term.

If you're positing an omni-everything intelligent designer, then you're really in the realm of a creature which could communicate. A better analogy than ants is the machines we build. We can communicate perfectly with an electronic information processing system. It may or may not experience the richness, but we can precisely provide some inputs and clearly interpret the outputs.

I think my major point is that a super-advanced entity powerful enough to create universes may have as little chance of communicating with us as we have with it. Regrettably, most (if not all) of the posters in this thread seem to disagree. :-(

Therefore, I'll shut up and try and think of something less inane for my next thread!

It's not inane, and can actually be fun. The first step is realizing that we can't be talking about any God posited by humans, and this creature certainly could not be omni-everything.

What if some super advanced civilization gained the ability to spawn baby universes, without the ability to meaningfully interact with the inhabitants? Or could they have some limited ability? Would the mechanism be dreams? As I said, if you don't assume omni-everything, it could be fun!

[six7s]

Hmm, well we're mostly not dumbTrue... but only in relation to the other organisms on the planet. We have spent pretty much every waking moment in our short history stretching our opposable thumbs and brains so that we can eat and sleep enough to reproduce...

Although we might have the sharpest knife in the drawer, we're only apprentice butchers... surgeons we ain't, not yet... give it another gazillion years

I think my major point is that a super-advanced entity powerful enough to create universes may have as little chance of communicating with us as we have with itCan god make a rock that is too heavy to lift?

Can god write a post that is too big to upload?

Therefore, I'll shut up and try and think of something less inane for my next thread!As you're obviously not hell-bent on serving up a dose of 'my woo is troo', I find this level of 'inane' quite palatable :)

[Limbo]

But if there was, would we be able to communicate with Him in any meaningful way?

You mean ego-consciousness to ego-consciousness? As in "Hi my name is Frank, and you must be God"?

Communicating with that which most would call 'the Divine' is a matter of altering ones consciousness, not a matter of opening hailing frequencies.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't communication an exchange of information in some way?

If God is omniscient, there can't possibly be communication because God already knows everything. (You can't tell him something he doesn't already know.)

[six7s]

God already knows everything. (You can't tell him something he doesn't already know.)

So? How about... y'know... god tells US something that WE don't know

e.g.

your keys are on top of the fridge
gravity is just a joke I was playing on you guys
ditto DOC
etc

[RobRoy]

Isn't communication an exchange of information in some way?

If God is omniscient, there can't possibly be communication because God already knows everything. (You can't tell him something he doesn't already know.)

Depends on the definition. I can offer some doozies that can go from either extreme. Not that I buy them, but they offer interesting perspectives. In its simplest form (Lasswell's Maxim-and even this is debatable) communication is a sender transferring information to a receiver. This definition does not require that new knowledge be provided, or that knowledge be exchanged, or even that there be a response to that information. Just a message passed from source to recipient.

Thus, radio or television provide communication to listers and viewers respectively, without an exchange, and sometimes without new knowledge.

[Roboramma]

Any intelligent god would know that we have some understanding of mathematics. It would be impossible for us to have developed the technology we have without doing so.

It would also, if it were so high above us, have at least the same level of mathematical understanding.

Thus, it could at least communicate with us in the same way that SETI scientists would communicate with extra-terrestrials.

[Complexity]

Mu.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Depends on the definition. I can offer some doozies that can go from either extreme. Not that I buy them, but they offer interesting perspectives. In its simplest form (Lasswell's Maxim-and even this is debatable) communication is a sender transferring information to a receiver. This definition does not require that new knowledge be provided, or that knowledge be exchanged, or even that there be a response to that information. Just a message passed from source to recipient.

Thus, radio or television provide communication to listers and viewers respectively, without an exchange, and sometimes without new knowledge.
And when believers talk about communicating with God, do you suppose this is the definition they're using?

Seems like they're mostly telling God what they want to happen or praising him (because apparently God has an esteem problem and needs a lot of praise). I suppose another category is prayers of gratitude.

For the most part, I don't think these are acts of communication as much as they are mental activity that keeps the person doing the praying in a certain frame of mind.

On my last real attempt at the God thing, I had a long conversation with a priest. I focused on this idea of a personal relationship with God--which was something he stressed a lot. I asked what that means, and he claimed it was just like any other relationship in your life except that the other person was the creator of the universe. My response was that if I was in any serious relationship where the other "person" completely ignored me and never ever once communicated his presence to me in a personal way, it would probably be a really unhealthy thing for me to still claim this is a relationship. This was back in the days when people were on the look out for "co-dependent" and "toxic" relationships. It seemed to me that this one that so many people claimed was the most important relationship in their lives was extremely unhealthy if it was to be judged in terms of normal interpersonal relationships.

[six7s]

....I was in any serious relationship where the other "person" completely ignored me and never ever once communicated his presence to me in a personal way, it would probably be a really unhealthy thing for me to still claim this is a relationship

Jesus loves you






















His dad says you're a schmuck

[RobRoy]

And when believers talk about communicating with God, do you suppose this is the definition they're using?

I was not commenting on what model believers use or don't use. I was answering your question by showing how the most basic and widely used model of communication addressed your criteria.

However, yes, I do think that's the definition of communication that believers are using when they pray: sender, message, and receiver. They just use the terms: supplicant, prayer, and God.

Seems like they're mostly telling God what they want to happen or praising him (because apparently God has an esteem problem and needs a lot of praise). I suppose another category is prayers of gratitude.

For the most part, I don't think these are acts of communication as much as they are mental activity that keeps the person doing the praying in a certain frame of mind.

That, of course, depends on if you think there's a receiver at the other end of the line of communication. If not, then yeah, you're correct. If so, then no, you're wrong.

On my last real attempt at the God thing, I had a long conversation with a priest. [snip]

Can't disagree with you here. In the main, I think a lot of "personal relationships with God" tend to be toxic, unhealthy, and hypocritical.

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, yes, I do think that's the definition of communication that believers are using when they pray: sender, message, and receiver. They just use the terms: supplicant, prayer, and God.
I've heard them use plenty of other words. Some examples include told, asked, answered, talked, revealed and decided. (I heard that last one not so long ago. It was a minister who was summarizing her bio to me: "And that was when God decided that I should take this job.")

Also, as I mentioned above, there are many believers who not only think it's possible to communicate (as in exchange of information) but even to enter into a personal relationship with God.

And then there's the whole "communion" thing.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That, of course, depends on if you think there's a receiver at the other end of the line of communication. If not, then yeah, you're correct. If so, then no, you're wrong.
So if someone believes in God, then they're not talking to themselves (and only having an effect on their own state of mind)? That's sort of like saying if you believe in God, then God exists.

Or am I misreading this?

[six7s]

And then there's the whole "communion" thing.:o And to think I used to swallow that crap... bu that's a whole nother kettle of piranhas...

[six7s]

So if someone believes in God, then they're not talking to themselves
I was brought up knowing* that the big sky daddy could hear everything and when I prayed, he was listening

___________________
* knowing, not believing... simply cos all the grown-ups said so

[RobRoy]

I've heard them use plenty of other words. Some examples include told, asked, answered, talked, revealed and decided. (I heard that last one not so long ago. It was a minister who was summarizing her bio to me: "And that was when God decided that I should take this job.")

Correct. The terms all work in relation to the idea of communication.

Also, as I mentioned above, there are many believers who not only think it's possible to communicate (as in exchange of information) but even to enter into a personal relationship with God.

Yes. There are. :)

And then there's the whole "communion" thing.

The perfect example of claimed communicating with God. Communion services for the Catholics are one of the most intimate personal interactions with a deity short of possession.

So if someone believes in God, then they're not talking to themselves (and only having an effect on their own state of mind)?

If there's a God, then yeah.

That's sort of like saying if you believe in God, then God exists.

Or am I misreading this?

No. I made an error in my phrasing. My response to you makes God dependant on the individual and that was not my intention. I should have said that your statement depends on if there actually is a God or not. If there is a God, then prayers aren't just a mental exercise. If there isn't, then they are.

[Silentknight]

Or it could go something like this:

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

I don't agree with it all, obviously, but it's still an entertaining read.

[RobRoy]

Or it could go something like this:

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

I don't agree with it all, obviously, but it's still an entertaining read.

I liked it. There was plenty that fit nicely with my own world-view. Doesn't make me right, but there it is.

There's another guy who put together a believer's dialogue called Conversations with God (http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-God-Uncommon-Dialogue-Book/dp/0399142789/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216398235&sr=1-1) which is supposed to be fairly good as well. I haven't read it yet.

[beeksc1]

Yeah, the divine presence in our universe reasonably is omniscience; and humans can access that divine knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, through experience or contemplation. So, yes, we are always communicating to our Creator; and the divine fabric that is intertwined throughout our life is communicating to us, when we accept it.

Peace.

~beeks

[Darth Rotor]

There's no such thing as a god. Well, I don't think so, anyway.

But if there was, would we be able to communicate with Him in any meaningful way?

That's why there is a worm in the bottom of the bottle of mezcal.
11652

image source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mezcal.jpg

On a non flippant note: prayer is a request, the answer tends to take the form of a puzzle game.

DR