I recently purchased a book  regarding some concepts of how our brains work.  It has me thinking about how God's mind works.  I have not read it completely ,however, it is fascinating. (On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins)\n\nA few questions:\nDo you think that he uses the same pattern recognition that we use for our senses?  How does he interpret his senses?  Does he rely on memories to make predictions?  Does he have instincts?  Does he have the full array of emotions that we have. \n\nPlease no answers with the he is all powerful all knowing , just pure philosophical guesses:)\n\nThanks
136842
Highest form of mind doesn't think. Thinking (information processing) is for finite minds.
124954
If your being an honest skeptic, you would have to include the Bible as a possible source of information that God exists. Actually the proof is all around you. Think about it, how could everything (with even just a single cell being very very complex) just be here out of chance? I sugggest watching the DVD "Where does the Evidence Lead?". It's really good and explains well the case for or against intellegent design. It's very well done and helped me a lot. I also suggest reading "the Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's really good about showing evidence for or against whether Jesus was God and it really makes sense. Actually, Strobel was an aithiest when he conducted the research and by the time he was done, his view was completely the opposite.
602200
Yeah...try an explain these too...\nhttp://www.biblebelievers.org/genindex.htm\n\n Hey slugmaster...how many mind power people have you seen healing the blind, making birth defects normal before your eyes, or raising the dead?
605863
"If God is good and all-powerful, why does evil exist in this world?"\n\nTime to bust out the big words:  Theodicy.\n\nTheodicy:  "an explanation for the presence of evil and suffering that is consistent with the nature and character of God."\n\nBoy, I'm not sure where to start.  There's so many points to make and I'm not sure how to organize my thoughts....but here goes nothing.  This is my theodicy:\n---------------------------------------------------------\nFirst, let's start by defining "evil."  Evil is not a force or a created thing, so it would be faulty to use the circular logic that either God created evil (meaning God isn't good) or that God isn't the Creator of everything (since He didn't create evil).\n\nEvil is the absence of good, much like rust on a car.  God, by giving us free will, allowed us to "create" evil by choosing against Him.  For, if God is good, then to choose against Him would by evil and the consequences would be death (since God gives life).  Just as darkness is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good.\n\nSometimes evil is the perversion of good.  Cancer is a good non-moral example.  It's a harmful mutation of otherwise healthy cells.  Whether evil twists good or flat-out rejects it, the results are the same.\n\nEvil is not God's fault.  He created only good and we distorted it, which is evil.\n\nEnough on this topic.  I'm leaving a few loose ends and there's much more to say on this, but I would be getting off track.\n\nSecond, let's point out a major implication of the question.  Anyone who asks our topic question for today is demonstrating the influence of Christianity on western thinking.  Hindus don't ask this question.  Animists don't grapple with it.  To them, the gods themselves are evil and corrupt and evil is to be an expected, embraced part of this world.  Suck it up and live with it.  It's the ying and the yang.  The Dark Side and the Light Side of the Force.  It's still the same Force.\n\nBut by asking the question, you are saying that there is a definite "evil" in this world that can be defined and identified.  There's something wrong and not right.  There is injustice.  And you presume that whoever this God fellow is, it's supposed to be His job to oppose this stuff and He's doing a lousy job.\n\nThis is a Christian worldview:  that evil is not normal and should be opposed.  The Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. are Christian influences in our society.  There is something in us as human beings that desires to fight injustice, help the suffering, etc.  This would make sense if we are made in God's image... but I'm getting off track again.  Let's move to the third point.\n\nThe question is usually vague and impersonal.  What I mean is that people who ask this question usually have in mind for God to go over and fix that mess in Iraq, or do something about sweat shops and child labor in China.  Why doesn't He oppose child pornography, or hold to account genocide in Africa?\n\nBut they don't want God to interfere with the sin and evil in their own hearts and lives.\n\nSee, for God to come in judgment, He would have to be fully just and judge all...  and this brings me to my final point.\n\nThe question neglects another key element of God's character.  Yes, He is good.  Yes, He is omnipotent.  But He is also merciful.  This may seem like a contradiction (i.e., why would He then allow suffering?), but let me explain.\n\nGod holds back His judgment with patient love in order to give us time to repent and be set right.  The painful side of this is that we also then have more time choose evil.  But the day will come when He will judge the earth.  The sweat shop owners will be held to account...and so will you and I.  God is good.  He is perfect, holy, and righteous.  He is pure.  He opposes evil.  We all have evil in our lives:  the t
85545
No, Actually I think that reproducing, concious and self-aware machines will be more ultimate.\n\nTwo parts:\n\nOne . . . \nIntelligence, is measurable as problem solving ability. Perhaps ultimately as the ability to solve new problems. Important, but I think that there are more interesting thing in store for us in the future.\n\nFor example, machines would be able to reproduce, and to adapt as a group through the processes of mutation (mistakes in reproduction) and natural selection. If they are concious and self aware, then their behaviors would be quite difficult to predict in different environments.\n\nTwo . . . \nPerhaps then we will have created something that can qualify as alive. Whether a supreme deity (I will use god in the generic sense rather than God in the specific sense, because I think this debate is applicable to many different interpretations of god.)\n\nDoes god take responsibility for man's creations? Though god may take responsibility for creating a world with disease, suffering, etc, Does god take responsibility for murder, war, genocide etc.? If god takes credit for man's creations then yes, god is ultimately responsible for these things by giving man the choice and ability to make these thing happen . . . and god would be responsible and credited for intelligent of living machines that were made by the hands of man.\n\nHowever, if god is not responsible for murder, war, genocide etc. then god would also not be responsible for man making an intelligent machine.\n\nA god can't have it both ways . . . either he's responsible for all of humanity's actions and creations or none of them.
251051
We cannot understand the nature of God he did not design our minds to be able to do so.His ways are not our ways.He surpasses all understanding.Yes I believe what you have said but I can not understand.
183767
Yes, its a great book and opens up all new ideas about life and religion.  It really makes you think. It was written by Neale Donald Walsh. One of my favourite things written in it was, 'No one will judge you ever, for why, and how, could God judge God's own creation and call it bad?'
494969
"If I submit to God, I’ll just become a puppet!"\n\n"A brilliant young man questioned Dr. Henrietta Mears about surrendering his life to God. He was convinced that becoming a Christian would mean the destruction of his personality, that he’d be altered in some strange way, and that he’d lose control of his own mind. He feared becoming a mere puppet in God’s hands. \n\n"So Miss Mears asked him to watch as she turned on a lamp. One moment it was dark, then she turned on the switch. She explained, ‘The lamp surrendered itself to the electric current and light has filled the room. The lamp didn’t destroy its personality when it surrendered to the current. On the contrary—the very thing happened for which the lamp was created: it gave light.’"\n\nVonette Bright, Renew a Steadfast Spirit Within Me
594155
I believe that God does know the future. As for why He does things, we may not understand them. But, they are all within His plan.
334542
Cutting and pasting this from an earlier question "Is there a god?" Easier than typing it all out again.\n\nNo. It's really a question that shouldn't even exist really, kinda like "What kind of shark repellant works best in Wisconson?" But sadly, millions of people think that it IS a question. Even sadder, millions more think that the answer is "yes," or at least pay lip service to the idea. Then they pass this mental illness on to their children.\n\nBy that reasoning at least, it could be considered a valid question, since apparently so many people seem to think that there IS some divine authority.\n\nI used to think that it was simply fear of death and herd instinct that kept this rather silly con-game going. For years I puzzled over just why otherwise intelligent people could swallow such unmitigated hogwash. Earlier this year, I found part of the answer in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Dr. Julian Jaynes. Hell of a title, I know, but it's written in a very friendly style that any reasonably bright layman can follow.\n\nWhile I disagree with the title, it would be more accurate to call it the "Origin of Sentience," the essence of what Dr. Jaynes had to say is very logical and answers many questions about why humans act as they do when it comes to religion and other bad ideas. What follows is a gross oversimplification of the theory, but you'll get the gist.\n\nNot to put too fine a point on it, but the urge to blindly follow some higher authority, real or imagined, is a byproduct of the process by which humans developed a spoken language and started to live together in larger groups. When given a command, a tribe member would essentially hallucinate a version of his leader giving him the command to keep him busy at complex tasks. Primitive man wasn't so hot at grasping the concept of death, so when a tribal leader would die they would venerate the corpse as the source of the ideas rattling in their head. When the corpse rotted, they replaced it with an effigy of the leader, a permanent copy of him if you will, and worshipped that as they would have the leader when he was alive. As society became more complex, this led to the development of writing to make the "god's" commands even more permanent.\n\nJaynes theorized that at this time the two hemispheres of the brain weren't connected quite like they are these days, and that the "voice of god" was really just a hallucination provided by the brain's right hemisphere. Humans of this early era were not self-aware as we understand the concept, rather they operated mechanically on the hallucinated orders of thier internalized gods. Once civilization reached the point that different cultures were forced to interact, the bicameral way of life eventually broke down.\n\nThe breakdown of the bicameral thinking did not mean the end of gods, rather, it heralded the beginning of what we call religion today. Since men no longer had an interalized god to call upon, they were forced to invent external, invisible gods to take their places.\n\nLike I said, this was a gross oversimplification of Jaynes' work. But as one can see, the urge to follow something else is practically hard wired in to the human brain. Religion was a crutch to aid man in the transition from the bicameral state to full self-awareness and self-authorization. The problem we face these days is that humans have apparently never gotten past that stage en masse. Religion remains in the collective conciousness exactly in the same way that a virus lives in a computer network.\n\nNo, there are no gods, save those man creates. Heaven isn't up there, Mount Olympus is barren. There's no Santa Claus, tooth fairy, or monster under your bed either.\n\nAn earlier poster suggested that you "Read the Bible and the Qu'ran and follow the advice of the prophets and see if you f
171682
I don't know yet. I have read it over, but not really studied it, and I am going to be watching a special about it tonight at 8pm EST on the National Geographic Channel. I do not make decisions about my faith until I know all the facts and have had ample time to think, pray, and do some soul searching. I suggest that any who are interested in gathering all the info necessary to make an informed decision watch the show and read the text.\n\n To the person above me still waiting for it's publication - you can read the text at the link below. Just click on the link, and to the right where it has the two download buttons, click the "download the entire English text as PDF."
102365
"By the way, to name the animals, Adam must have been able to speak. He must have had a complex language right from the start. He did not even have to learn to speak as we have to. He was made as a mature human being.\n\nHow different it was for Adam. He awoke after his creation, a conscious being, fully formed, able to communicate and understand...\n  \nThe Bible, though, tells us that the first man Adam rebelled against God and sin came into the world. Ever since, the creation has been running down. Not only are there no perfect humans in the world now, but all humans have lots of mistakes on their genes (mutational defects or copying mistakes that slowly accumulate in the human race).\n\nThe first man had no mistakes when he was made - he was perfect.\n\nI think we can get a glimpse (looking through a glass dimly, so to speak) of what Adam was like by observing certain people today. I have met people who have photographic memories, others who are brilliant artists. I have read about people who can play musical instruments brilliantly from a very young age, such as Mozart. Others can do extremely complex mathematical computations in their head which even advanced computers take time to accomplish.\n\nIf we put all these talents, plus much more, into one person, I think we are getting close to what Adam was like. Almost makes you feel depressed, doesn't it?\n\nWe have to realize that Adam was so much more intelligent than we are. We are even told that we don't use much of our brain power. Imagine a human who could use all of his brain power. It was certainly no problem for Adam to name and remember animals on one day....."
146844
Not only yes, but it makes you an intelligent one!!\n\nRemember this book was still written by men, not god himself.
1085
Instinct can be deceiving. God gave you this magnificent organ called a brain with an incredible ability to think for a reason. God made our brains to reason such things as "who is God and how can I contact Him?" Instinct will not contemplate such deep musings. Instinct will lead you in to all sorts of trouble.\n\nExample: You are flying an airline to Maui. Do you want your pilot to use his knowledge of navigation or instinct? If he were a Golden Plubber, perhaps instinct, but he's not. So, give me the brain any day.
471108
Dear Atheist for Christians Banned:\n\nI find in our Category, here, that the great wealth of ideas and what has been learned is seldom shared. Rather, we shout small bytes at each other when, at least I, would prefer to get deeper into experiences and the lessons contained therein. Exploration about God is appropriate for the Religion/Spirituality Forum. Are we offering each other something of depth and richness to contemplate?  What is available to us - from each other?\n\nYes, I have read many articles on Evolution.  I like to dabble in Physics just enough to "stay up" with the latest information.\n\nAtheism has demanded, recently, that God be proven. They seem to feel that Christians are duped!  Yet, Atheism leads to our not acknowledging there is anything beyond or more than physical matter and human Intellect. Nothing more. No other concepts integrated .  Just Intellect examining a world of physical matter.\n\nScience, however,  has decided God can not be disproved or thrown away, after all. Physics has found itself smack up against Him and is desperate to prove Him. (String theories (all 5) or M-Theory). But I tell you, God will never be a mathematical formula.  It takes the soul or spirit-mind within,  to bring forth its Knowledge of its Creator (which it shares with the divine Presence).  Only soul/spirit can direct the Scientist to proper understanding of the Order of Creation. Science is, after all, inspiration ; inspired first - to learn of it's world and our Self. But, then, at best, you have still a cold calculation from Science - about the Created and it's Creator - with no experience of His divine nature; the ecstasy, the unlimited-ness, the Unopposed force of the Creative Being, of Who we are a part. \n\nThe Intellect is of logic and reasoning. It deduces and judges. God is Knowledge and Knowing. \n\nWe should be open to thoughts that behind the Intellect lies our soul or Spirit: The Seat of all Knowledge. Until we understand soul/spirit - we can not know our Self. \n\nIntellect is a mental exercise. It changes, shifts, and alters its thought processes.  But, Knowledge is unalterable.\n\nThe Evolution of Earth contains the Creator existing along with it.  This is Integration. \n\nBest regards, Lana
492228
Yes, I read it and found it very interesting.  The reader should keep in mind, though, that the author does not claim to be anything but human, that is, he does not claim to be God made manifest in a human form like Moses, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, The Bab, and Baha'u'llah.  Therefore, his interpretation of what God is revealing to him is subject to error.  Only the Manifestations of God are perfect and flawless.  Even the highest saint is still human and subject to error.\n\nwww.bahai.org
544816
Stop asking such hard questions!  :-)\n\nBut depending on who you ask, not really.  For all anyone knows for sure, the person reading this is actually a brain in a jar in a lab somewhere being "fed" misinformation.   (No, the Matrix guys didn't think that up, it's been a concept since before Buddha or Socrates.)\n\nThe usual answer is that while we can't know "reality" we can make logical judgments about the ideas being fed to us in our "brain jars"\n\nRead up on Socrates, Buddhism, and maybe Existentialism for a starting place.  Or email me for a dissertation... :-)