Furthermore, the evidence of basic syntax in a primate relative as distant as the division between Cercopithecidae and Hominidae, in addition to the
multi-sensory expression of redundant communication methods which have ancient roots suggests that the development of language was not an adaptation
to the loss of an innate "telepathy" we once had... but that we never had it to begin with. I'll give an example in a moment, but surely such an
advanced ability would require at least the same level of inter-connective pathways and complimentary processes as the visual cortex? Where are the
vestigial cognitive functions which attempt process a portion of a now defunct "phantom" communication system?
Back to God for a moment, it's evident that were he to try to communicate via language, that he'd be kicking around a patchwork clunker primate
brain with a pre-frontal lobe "Red Green Rigged" supercharger in terms of getting any kind of important message across (let alone one such from the
mind of GOD). We obviously are not innately skilled at learning written languages, so speaking to us via a book no matter what language is kinda
pointless. What about speaking to us through the universe? Perhaps... but we're not very good at innately inferring reality for what it is either.
Otherwise, we wouldn't need to have invented for ourselves the logic based methodological error-correction tools such as the Scientific Method and
Mathematics our brains lack. What those tools have shown us is that... we're actually blind to all but a very narrow sliver of the universe which we
needed to adapt to survive in. That's even a worse idea than the book, don't you think?
This example applies to both above subjects, as what we see is not only restricted to basic survival level in our environment - but ramshackled
through that brilliantly complex and yet wholly messy brain into a "shadow on a cave wall". Considering how densely interconnected and
multi-functional most regions of the brain are - it's important to understand what we perceive is not a singular observation, but a representation
modified by multiple interacting specialized regions - some of which aren't even directly useful in visual processing but are over-applied to little
effect aside from perhaps slight optical illusions or the tendency to process positive facial or spatial recognition to patterns to arbitrary and
inapplicable situations. Your visual cortex is not the centralized processing center of visual perception, but rather only the first step in a
hierarchy of visual perception. The most useful current hypothesis suggests two "specialized" visual perception streams. The Dorsal "How/Where"
stream which involves the processing of spatial recognition, modeling, and motion tracking tasks.. the "hard" vision. The Ventral "what/who"
stream is primarily responsible for recognition of patterns and associations with memories, gauging importance, and helping to assign emotional
relevance. This hierarchy of visual processing can present a problem...
The phenomena is called pareidolia, and is caused by arbitrary patterns in a roughly "facial" configuration triggering the activation of the ventral
fusiform cortex very early in the perception stream - which will effect the processing of all subsequent tasks down-stream. However, this doesn't
override or negate the later associations in perception and with long-term memory which correlate recognition. What you consciously see is both the
object for what it is, as well as a face simultaneously. What's cool about that is that you could actually use a small electrical pulse to disrupt
the VF-Cortex, watch that video again, and you wouldn't perceive the faces.
Perhaps I know why God isn't speaking to anyone. Perhaps with all the other useful stuff he left out of us or slacked off on... he completely forgot
to put a "soul" in us. How embarrassing for an all knowing deity? Sheesh. I suppose we're lucky we got the the duct-tape of executive cognitive
functions and the spackle to hide the seams so from our point of view, we can't tell the difference.
Perhaps the question is not what language would god speak, but rather why would you want to talk to such a being after all that? See, this is why he
used to smite people and demand fear. Kept us from realizing who he really is.
(I'm being sarcastic, of course, as I do believe in God - but I don't believe in a personal god who interferes in our lives or our universe. One
that's likely to not even be aware of our existence, or perhaps wouldn't care. We could be the manifestation of a predicted emergent processes
irrelevant to the universe's true purpose - or perhaps merely lost in the crowd of billions of other sentient life forms which have emerged. I
imagine such a being would likely have very little to say to us, or motivation to say it)
God may speak the language of creation, but I don't presume to think that it's a message meant for us.
Some interesting points you have raised Lasheic...
We obviously are not innately skilled at learning written languages, so speaking to us via a book no matter what language is kinda
pointless. What about speaking to us through the universe? Perhaps... but we're not very good at innately inferring reality for what it is
You are of course, correct. One of the most annoying problems with all languages is that they are subjective and as a result, ambiguous. Statements
are open to interpretation and we generally jog along with an approximation of the meaning what has been said or written. When it comes to relaying
an experience, we try to abstract it to convenient points of reference that we then try to convey via language which of course, is wholly
unsatisfactory but is better than nothing.
Perhaps I know why God isn't speaking to anyone. Perhaps with all the other useful stuff he left out of us or slacked off on... he
completely forgot to put a "soul" in us.
Maybe it is 'we' who have forgotten about the 'soul'!
Perhaps the question is not what language would god speak, but rather why would you want to talk to such a being after all that? See, this
is why he used to smite people and demand fear. Kept us from realizing who he really is.
'We are but private parts of the Gods, they play with us at their will'... You use a human reaction, of the listener, to judge the actions of an
omnipotent being. Can a cockroach consider the actions of a pest exterminator and hope to understand?
God may speak the language of creation, but I don't presume to think that it's a message meant for us.
On this point I am in total agreement. For too long 'we' have considered ourselves the object of 'the Great Work' rather than simply a
It can't be music, you wouldn't need ears to hear with. It won't be color, you wouldn't need eyes to see with. I don't think it would be art
forms, for art is revealed by what it is NOT (i.e. from a block of stone, Michelangelo's David emerged from the chips that were removed so it is what
was removed by creation that is the art) It cannot be any of these things, but none of you are wrong, either.
God is that which is the remainder of all that we think IS. God is the ability for existence to exist. We cannot use fragments to define
him/it/she/they. Words cannot apply. God cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be felt, tasted or smelled. What you feel when you think about God
is not God, it is YOU feeling. But how did feeling come to be? How did any of it come to be? He/It/She/They is not unreal.
God does leave tracks. You can see where god was, by the footprints (and don't take that word literally). You and I are what god left behind and we
are in a place that God left behind. "I am that I am? The Word
"Of silent wonders it will tell, with silent voice and mystic spell, Of hidden ways in clearest sight, on a moebius road through darkness
how do we know how something communicates of we dont even know what this something is.
some say this something is everything ,
some say this something is you
some say this something does not exist
could it be that all three are correct and that in order to understand god you must understand what god is ?
if god is everything then god is also the first stone that is thrown or the stone thrown in a glass house
if god is you then you are the one who throws the first stone or the stone in the glasshouse
if god does not exists then you are still responcible for the first stone thrown or for the thrown stone in the glasshouse anyways
one can then also argue that all above is wrong and that god is just data and that you process that data by your own free will how you see it fit
still leading to the question what is the pourpus of a god if you by your own free will can exclude that variable.
why be given the freedom not to see/hear/taste/feel god in everything if god is in your face anyways all the time ?
does god speak thou action or movement and is constantly "speaking" throu this force or is god just passive and does nothing and everything that has
any meaning happens throu inner self realization
is god the thought that you must throw the first stone or is the throwing of the stone the voice of god , is the action in its whole a muttering of
god or just parts of it or none ?
if god is everywhere and everything then god is also the agent orange raining down of confused villagers or the uranium enriched bullet stuck in the
celing tiles giving you the daily head ache you never asked for,
questions, questions , can something be restricted in what it can be or is the restriction it cant be less ?
God is truth, truth speaks all languages
God is one, and all, he is all languages
God is functional to himself, he speaks the most functional
in a life where he is hidden.
It means he speaks every word through you,
and in choice he speaks the most usefull, functional way
when you get a vision, he is behind it,
the vision is not a confirmation, it is a invitation
to search behind.
In god all is holy, and god comes shines throught the lowest,
it means sometimes he looks boring, and is laughed at.
But in the end because of only one absolute truth,
he stands firm where there is no choice.
God has free will, not choice, that's why you are here,
to give him choice, think one, think Him, and you take away
choice, and you'll do the most functional to One, and you will
speak from Him, and hear Him.
That makes sense. If God will speak He will do that telepathicly because that way the deaf will also be able to hear him and maybe that way people
also can be able to see him, which can be good for the blind. That way every person can experiance and understand God.
Wouldn't God just create a universal translator like they have in Star Trek? While many want to view him as technophobe who uses mythical powers for
everything, there is no reason to think that he isn't a huge tech geek. In fact he may have technology that we could only dream of.
He might even appear before us in a hologram that automatically translates his words into the major language of the area. Which would likely mean a
massive number of holograms would be used to reach every part of the planet. Which would require a massive computer that only God could build.
I' m not especially a believer, but isn't that said in the Bible that when Jesus sends his disciples around the globe to spread the good news there
is the Holy Spirit descending on each of them, " and so they spoke every language of mankind " ( badly remembered and translated from my 20year-old
French Bible )
I assume God wouldn't talk to you. You would get the answers by other means than the sound only. Shapes, colours, whatever...He has the power over
everything, what the hell is that useful for if he can't communicate with a small unsignificant human ?
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.