43 replies to this topic

[ken_akiba]

Or is it even possible for God to have/use language at all?

[magnesium]

Dolphins emit two distinct kinds of acoustic signals, which are called whistles and clicks. It appears that Dolphins can hear His or Her transmissions. Humans not so much.

[Vgamer1]

God speaks in a language called static (or silence if you prefer)

Edited by Vgamer1, 17 May 2010 - 05:24 PM.

[chrwe]

Dolphins? I just KNEW there was something to "so long and thanks for all the fish"

[chris w]

Old Hebrew of course.

Edited by chris w, 17 May 2010 - 05:43 PM.

[ken_akiba]

Umm.. I'm afraid none of terrestrial languages qualify here because for one thing, all have function of 'grammatical tense'. Example) had been, has been, was, is, will be, will have been etc.
Because God is beyond time.

Edited by ken_akiba, 17 May 2010 - 06:44 PM.

[Vgamer1]

It is beyond time and it also is time.

[forever freedom]

God doesn't need language. After all, religious people always tell us that God talks to them through signals, feelings, spiritual experiences, the Bible, etc.

Edited by forever freedom, 17 May 2010 - 06:32 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Which version of God: El, or Yahweh, the Jewish nameless God, or the final descendant of this lineage, the nameless Allah?

Of course, if gods were real, they'd likely speak whatever language the listener understands. Actually, this is true even with fictional gods, as our history shows.

[Shannon Vyff]

binary!

[ken_akiba]

"El, or Yahweh, the Jewish nameless God, or the final descendant of this lineage, the nameless Allah?"
Whoever

"binary"
I love it but I'm afraid binary code is still trapped within linear timeline... However I find it is my very question that is somewhat unfair because the question itself forces answerers to be trapped within linear timeline because language itself cannot exist without the talker and listerner being trapped in the same frame of linear timeline.

Maybe what I needed to ask was: How would God think... One thing for sure: God doesn't know the meaning of 'causality'. Well maybe knows by watching us (that is, if God allowed us free will) but God doesn't 'understand' it by experience...

Edited by ken_akiba, 17 May 2010 - 07:41 PM.

[Vgamer1]

If God were to say exactly what it is thinking, it wouldn't speak at all.

Edited by Vgamer1, 17 May 2010 - 07:49 PM.

[Kolos]

If we talk about monotheistic God as in Christianity or Islam there is no reason for him to have his own language, perhaps to talk with his angels/other spiritual beings but they don't really have lungs or other biological organs so they don't make sounds, they also don't use physical objects and we can't really say anything about their "natural" environment, is there any environment to begin with? Any non-physical objects or places?
Today christians tend to believe that heaven is not a "place" but rather a state (same with hell or purgatory) so perhaps angels and God would just exchange their thoughts and emotions directly rather than formulate them with words, language or even ideograms it would be a language of pure telepathy.

[drus]

god's language is mathematics, geometry, and compassion/selfless love. god speaks through the very nature of reality/mind/the universe itself.

Edited by drus, 17 May 2010 - 09:44 PM.

[chris w]

god's language is mathematics, geometry, and compassion/selfless love. god speaks through the very nature of reality/mind/the universe itself.

I could reluctantly agree on the first aspect ( meanig - if a believed in God, that's what I would think ) but not on the compassion / selfless love, to me that sounds absolutely antropomorphic, like saying that if there is one good human father, then God is for example thousend times more like that. I think that if God existed, then his "thoughts" and "emotions" could not even be adequatly named by confined brains such us ours, we could not even begin to comprehend how God is.

Compassion is something you feel for somebody in trouble when you don't know how to help or know but cannot, I don't think God could ever be in such situation. And if he loves us, why is there any kind of physical / psychological suffering down here ? Why would he put us through a test if his love is endless, he would not have to sort the good humans from the bad humans, but make us all "good", why the trouble ?

Edited by chris w, 17 May 2010 - 10:17 PM.

[drus]

so you're saying that god's language would be math and geometry, but NOT love?!?!?!?!

[shadowhawk]

Or is it even possible for God to have/use language at all?

Theism says God or Gods can speak in a number of ways. He can speak through nature such as a cosmos like ours. Here is one of many arguments using the nature (evolution, progressive creationism, intelligent design, etc.) of the Cosmos to argue for this.
(1) Whatever comes to be has a cause of its coming to be; (2) The universe came to be; (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its coming to be. That cause is God.? The existence of things speak to us in wonderment and cause many to respond to the language of existence, “who or what did this?” It (existence) speaks to us. How?

God speaks through design in the cosmos or the nature of things.

http://www.arn.org/
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
http://creationevolu...n.blogspot.com/
http://www.designinference.com/
http://researchid.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.ideacenter.org/
http://www.intellige...ignnetwork.org/
http://www.iscid.org/
http://www.reasonabl...site/PageServer
http://designparadigm.blogsome.com/
http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/

There is an intelligence behind it all the above intelligent sources insist.

But what of the objections of this not being a language? The theist has to infer this and it is not therefore, evidence. This can be argued, if it is granted, this is not enough evidence, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Agreed, this must be understood by faith but no matter what your position it must be comprehended by faith. We all believe even if we insist we don’t.

This above view is called “General Revelation.” We need something more “specific,” or “special.”

To keep ths short let me give you a source more specific and which covers many subjects, Leadership University.

http://www.leaderu.com/

John W. Montgomery’s books are all good on being able to trust the language sources of special revelation. He has five doctorates.
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sbs_02_03
http://www.amazon.co...i...638&sr=1-13

God can speak to us through scripture. Special revelation.

[e Volution]

I think you hit the nail on the head with "is it even possible for God to have/use language at all?".

Personally, I think modern science has now left almost no room for "God" as we humans think about him/her/it. Particularly neurosciences delvings into "higher-level" thinking/consciousness in great apes, dolphins, and other animals show that we humans and our cognitive abilities are not especially unique, especially language. IIRC they put FOXP2 gene (believed to be involved in human language) in mice and its changed their vocalisations? I think if there is a "God" or "Creator" then it is likely it is not even aware of our presence. It is likely that you could not even refer to it as "it". To me the story goes like: consciousness happens in the brain. With no brain no consciousness. And consciousness appears to be intimately linked to language.

More on topic, I read an article the other day in New Scientist Mind over matter? How your body does your thinking (sorry not full article) showing that our language is tied very closely to our bodies and the interaction between our physical bodies and the physical environment. I'll quote the article:

"I THINK therefore I am," said Descartes. Perhaps he should have added: "I act, therefore I think."

Our ability to think has long been considered central to what makes us human. Now research suggests that our bodies and their relationship with the environment govern even our most abstract thoughts. This includes thinking up random numbers or deciding whether to recount positive or negative experiences. "Advocates of traditional accounts of cognition would be surprised," says Tobias Loetscher at the University of Melbourne in Parkville, Australia. "They generally consider human reasoning to involve abstract cognitive processes devoid of any connection to body or space."
...
This is quite a turnaround. Typically looked down upon as a vessel for our all-important brain, our bodies are now being recast as the crucial foundation of our minds. This has huge implications for the creation of artificial intelligences. Will they need bodies? Should they be human-like? Would a different body plan produce a different type of intelligence?

^^ Sorry the juicy research findings not included in this snippet. However the article postulated a very interesting idea of these implications for our interaction with other intelligent beings. It is possible their bodies and/or environment will be so different we be unable to communicate with each other? I think this question also applies even more so to "God".

So like some other members here im with Galileo on this one: "Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."

[ken_akiba]

Nice ideas.
Not to halt the exchange of interesting ideas (please do continue by all means) but what motivated me to start this thread was to read your view on:
Should God speak or think at all, the process must be non-linear* (in chronological terms), thus to God, the core fiber of language or thought process disintegrates i.e. in temrs of causality, God has no problem seeing a future event acting as a cause, to an event of a past: Causality breaks down.

*non-linear: For those who may not be familiar with this concept, a rough comparison could be, VHS is linear whereas DVD is non-linear, in a sense that while viewing DVD, you are free to jump around to view any part or point of time of the movie (without lengthy rewinding or fast-forwarding). Those who are familiar with video-editing, digital editors like like Adobe Premiere, unlike ancient analog editing machines, is called non-linear editor because you may choose to edit any portion of the video at any time w/o constrain of chronological linearity.

[Kolos]

^^ Sorry the juicy research findings not included in this snippet. However the article postulated a very interesting idea of these implications for our interaction with other intelligent beings. It is possible their bodies and/or environment will be so different we be unable to communicate with each other?

Well we can communicate quite well with monkeys, dogs, cats or even dolphins so it should be possible although it might be hard because they can communicate with pheromones, touch or some other way that would seem weird to us and their way of thinking might be very different but probably not too different if they were shaped by evolution and their environment is not drastically different than ours...

[chris w]

so you're saying that god's language would be math and geometry, but NOT love?!?!?!?!

Yes, basically that's what I'm saying, I dont get where this surprise comes from, like I said something totally crazy. If God existed he would be working in sync with the laws of universe, as they could be considered his "thoughts" but love just doesn't fit with this at all to me. Why would he create us in this material form in order to love after that ? That sounds like a kid building LEGO castle and then admiring what he built. God could very well just "imagine" us and love this images, no need to go all the way and make us from scratch.

[chrwe]

Maybe some research into psycholinguistics would be interesting here and the results of research on how babies eventually make the pictures in their heads turn to language.

You can laugh all you like, but I do remember a few episodes before I could talk and I do remember having pictures and ideas in my head - but only my adult self can attach language to it. How this process happens could answer how we can eventually communicate in other ways.

[Kolos]

Yes, basically that's what I'm saying, I dont get where this surprise comes from, like I said something totally crazy. If God existed he would be working in sync with the laws of universe, as they could be considered his "thoughts" but love just doesn't fit with this at all to me. Why would he create us in this material form in order to love after that ? That sounds like a kid building LEGO castle and then admiring what he built. God could very well just "imagine" us and love this images, no need to go all the way and make us from scratch.

I would say monotheistic God have no "evolutionary" reason to love anyone because he doesn't need anyone for anything. Actually he doesn't need emotions of any kind, he don't have to act at all etc. We can know for a fact that his love is different than our e.g. he values our free will more than happiness, if he was a human we would say his a weird or even evil person(to put it lightly) but Christians believe that his love is actually superior to human feelings.

[shadowhawk]

[/quote] "is it even possible for God to have/use language at all?" [/quote]

A universe which evidences all the elements of design shows that what ever kind of God there is, language would be a small feat. Any concept of God who can’t communicate in any human language is to small. My answer to the above is, “yes.”

[/quote] Should God speak or think at all, the process must be non-linear* (in chronological terms), thus to God, the core fiber of language or thought process disintegrates i.e. in terms of causality, God has no problem seeing a future event acting as a cause, to an event of a past: Causality breaks down.

*non-linear: For those who may not be familiar with this concept, a rough comparison could be, VHS is linear whereas DVD is non-linear, in a sense that while viewing DVD, you are free to jump around to view any part or point of time of the movie (without lengthy rewinding or fast-forwarding). Those who are familiar with video-editing, digital editors like like Adobe Premiere, unlike ancient analog editing machines, is called non-linear editor because you may choose to edit any portion of the video at any time w/o constrain of chronological linearity. [/quote]

In a Judo/Christian sense, God is the Beginning and the end as far as time is concerned. (Alpha and Omega) All is present to God. God is eternal present. That is because God has a different nature than us. So, I agree with DVD when it comes to God. At the same time, we have a nature less than God, with a beginning, present and end. Language is something created and goes on between created things. VHS

[drus]

so you're saying that god's language would be math and geometry, but NOT love?!?!?!?!

Yes, basically that's what I'm saying, I dont get where this surprise comes from, like I said something totally crazy. If God existed he would be working in sync with the laws of universe, as they could be considered his "thoughts" but love just doesn't fit with this at all to me. Why would he create us in this material form in order to love after that ? That sounds like a kid building LEGO castle and then admiring what he built. God could very well just "imagine" us and love this images, no need to go all the way and make us from scratch.

perhaps 'god' didnt create the universe, or us for that matter.

[chris w]

so you're saying that god's language would be math and geometry, but NOT love?!?!?!?!

Yes, basically that's what I'm saying, I dont get where this surprise comes from, like I said something totally crazy. If God existed he would be working in sync with the laws of universe, as they could be considered his "thoughts" but love just doesn't fit with this at all to me. Why would he create us in this material form in order to love after that ? That sounds like a kid building LEGO castle and then admiring what he built. God could very well just "imagine" us and love this images, no need to go all the way and make us from scratch.

perhaps 'god' didnt create the universe, or us for that matter.

Then his love for us would be an even stranger case, a kind of love somehow meaningless, because fruitless. He would be some sort of a "sub - optimal" God, one that can do neat physical tricks for example (a miracle here and there ), but not able to, say, "reedem our souls" and "make the Universe anew" whatever that meant exactly, he would not be much different from a lover longing for the other one, divided by the ocean. I don't care for such godly love that cannot do much good for me in the end. Why would I worship a god potent, but not omnipotent ?

Edited by chris w, 26 May 2010 - 09:27 PM.

[drus]

so you're saying that god's language would be math and geometry, but NOT love?!?!?!?!

Yes, basically that's what I'm saying, I dont get where this surprise comes from, like I said something totally crazy. If God existed he would be working in sync with the laws of universe, as they could be considered his "thoughts" but love just doesn't fit with this at all to me. Why would he create us in this material form in order to love after that ? That sounds like a kid building LEGO castle and then admiring what he built. God could very well just "imagine" us and love this images, no need to go all the way and make us from scratch.

perhaps 'god' didnt create the universe, or us for that matter.

Then his love for us would be an even stranger case, a kind of love somehow meaningless, because fruitless. He would be some sort of a "sub - optimal" God, one that can do neat physical tricks for example (a miracle here and there ), but not able to, say, "reedem our souls" and "make the Universe anew" whatever that meant exactly, he would not be much different from a lover longing for the other one, divided by the ocean. I don't care for such godly love that cannot do much good for me in the end. Why would I worship a god potent, but not omnipotent ?

are you familiar with the different aspects/kinds of love? i think we are talking about two different things actually. it seems to me you are equating 'love' in this context with 'philial' love, whereas i'm refering to love in the context of a deeper/greater more intrinsic type, such as 'agape' (or 'advesa' or 'metta' in buddhism). but that aside, perhaps human beings arent naturally endowed with a soul, but only with the potential for one. that being the case, then perhaps one must develope the soul to ever experience it, and thusly to ever experience god? just a thought.

Edited by drus, 26 May 2010 - 10:03 PM.

[MoodyBlue]

What do you mean when you use the word, "God"? If you mean an individual who created the universe and all of us, then there is no such god. That is an anthropomorphic image which Alan Watts says is responsible for the perpetuation of the illusion of ego which alienates us within the universe and puts at odds with each other. Watts says that in philosophy there are two general categories of minds. The western mind(also known as the Greek mind) and the eastern mind. The western mind thinks of the universe as having been created by the gods (individuals) or one God (individual). With the eastern mind the perception is inverted. The universe created the gods (individuals). You could also think of the gods (individuals) as individuations of the universe. Now, when I say universe I really mean the metaphysical universe which itself is not an individual spiritual entity, but rather infinite, eternal and incomparably beyond the way we perceive ourselves as less than infinite individuals.

All languages and no need for language would be appropriate.

[drus]

What do you mean when you use the word, "God"? If you mean an individual who created the universe and all of us, then there is no such god. That is an anthropomorphic image which Alan Watts says is responsible for the perpetuation of the illusion of ego which alienates us within the universe and puts at odds with each other. Watts says that in philosophy there are two general categories of minds. The western mind(also known as the Greek mind) and the eastern mind. The western mind thinks of the universe as having been created by the gods (individuals) or one God (individual). With the eastern mind the perception is inverted. The universe created the gods (individuals). You could also think of the gods (individuals) as individuations of the universe. Now, when I say universe I really mean the metaphysical universe which itself is not an individual spiritual entity, but rather infinite, eternal and incomparably beyond the way we perceive ourselves as less than infinite individuals.

All languages and no need for language would be appropriate.

anthropomorphic deity(s) or existential 'being'? hmmmmm, what's greater? i would say existential being is......
i would define 'GOD' as that which nothing greater can be conceived.

[N.T.M.]

For those who wish to postulate a God, the only coherent stance would be deism. In which case God's isolation from humanity would render any language useless. An omnipotent God presumably doesn't have any superfluous habits.

*I had to...*

anthropomorphic deity(s) or existential 'being'? hmmmmm, what's greater? i would say existential being is......
i would define 'GOD' as that which nothing greater can be conceived.

*cough cough* ontological argument, *cough cough*

Edited by N.T.M., 27 May 2010 - 08:13 AM.