Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[h_k_s]

Then...

1. You gain an appreciation for intelligent design & “gratitude is the parent of all virtues.”

2. You begin to explore “the kingdom of God within you” and stop looking for love/God in all the wrong places.

3. You begin to acknowledge the kingdom of God in others and treat them better, making this world a better place.

=
Still, I realize that what I (or anyone else) interpret God to mean, is more a reflection of the interpreter than of God/Truth/Love/Intelligence etc.

The Philosophy-God is definitely an intelligent Designer.

While the concept evolved with Aristotle's "Prime Mover," in modern philosophy (which is mostly British Empiricism) God solves the problem of paradoxes and contradictions with "First Cause" (an Aquinas concept).

[anonymous66]

h_k_s
I guess I wasn't clear in my OP.... Let me try again: I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God. I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind (I'm partial to arguments for panpsychism and a conscious universe... a conscious universe that could be considered to be God) that is the reason that everything exists. It's just that I don't see what, if anything, must follow from that belief.

I also like arguments for objective morality- I think there is a truth of the matter when discussing questions of morality. I experience a world in which morality is objective. Opinions about morality are obviously influenced by culture, and emotions, and personal history- but in the end it is not culture nor emotion, nor personal history that determines what is moral. There must be a reason that morality is objective- we could refer to that reason as God.

I have read some Aristotle, and I know a little about Aquinas. Have you ever read Whitehead? I'm partial to process philosophy and process theology.

[anonymous66]

anonymous66: "It sounds like you're saying "in addition to merely believing in God - that belief must make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it."

I am just saying that if God is merely a theoretical concept that has no personal significance to you, than it's irrelevant whether or not you accept it. This was the position of existential philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard.

I'm interested in the concept of God as prime mover- I suppose that would qualify as a theoretical concept. It sounds like you're saying (or at least that existential philosophers and Soren Kierkegaard) believe that in addition to accepting God's existence, that acceptance must also have personal relevance, else it doesn't matter if one accepts it or not.

As someone who questions the likelihood that materialism is correct, I think the concept of God is one alternative... But, doesn't the concept of God have too much baggage that goes along with it? I think Nagel is on to something when he suggests there must be something other than materialism that explains why there is something rather than nothing. But I also question whether that explanation must be referred to as God.

For example, let's say that the universe itself is conscious, and has always existed- that is, panpsychism is true. I can also imagine that this conscious universe learns and changes- that is consistent with process philosophy- and would help explain why evil exists.

[anonymous66]

No matter how far you go back eventually you get to the point before the big bang before anything anyone cant think up and you have to confront the idea/thought "something had to make the stuff stuff is made out of " .

Isn't it the case that something has always existed? (If you're right, the something that made the stuff that stuff is made of must have always existed). Couldn't that something be the universe itself? That is, isn't it possible that the universe always existed- in that case that the universe always existed, it existed in a different form before the big bang.

[Karpel Tunnel]

now what?

It depends on the deity, but it seems like most people at that point would want contact with said deity. Interaction, connection...then perhaps information or heuristics. And most theisms offer practices that are supposed to enhance connection and perhaps even the receiving of the latter.

[RJG]

No matter how far you go back eventually you get to the point before the big bang before anything anyone cant think up and you have to confront the idea/thought "something had to make the stuff stuff is made out of ".

Isn't it the case that something has always existed? (If you're right, the something that made the stuff that stuff is made of must have always existed). Couldn't that something be the universe itself? That is, isn't it possible that the universe always existed- in that case that the universe always existed, it existed in a different form before the big bang.

Bingo! ...the universe has "always existed" (eternal; never 'not' existed).

[anonymous66]

now what?

It depends on the deity, but it seems like most people at that point would want contact with said deity. Interaction, connection...then perhaps information or heuristics. And most theisms offer practices that are supposed to enhance connection and perhaps even the receiving of the latter.

Doesn't your response assume we're talking about a deity that could be interacted with? That is it appears your response to my question would be (or perhaps you're only saying "some people believe that") "in addition to accepting the existence of God, you must also realize that this God can be contacted/interacted with/connected with".

Isn't it also possible that God exists as a prime mover, but God isn't something/someone that can be connected with? It seems to me that this prime mover could have consciousness, but not a personality as we understand it.

[anonymous66]

1. You gain an appreciation for intelligent design & “gratitude is the parent of all virtues.”

It seems to me that the evidence very clearly suggests that if God exists, He did not intelligently design His creation. That is, if given the choice between intelligent design and evolution- evolution is clearly the best choice.

[Felix]

anonymous66: "Isn't it also possible that God exists as a prime mover, but God isn't something/someone that can be connected with? It seems to me that this prime mover could have consciousness, but not a personality as we understand it."

If God is Consciousness - omniscience is an attribute commonly ascribed to Him - than we can't help but be connected with Him (I think Karpel Tunnel alluded to that), but the connection is an unconscious impersonal one unless it somehow becomes otherwise, through some sort of spiritual realization.

In Hindu philosophy there is the concept of the Avatar, i.e., God incarnate, God personified, as in Jesus Christ. He is God realized (knows the Divine) but being human we can relate to him, he's not just some airy abstract concept read about in a book. Of course Jesus the historical figure is that way too, so one must look through the glare to see te light.

anonymous66: "That is, if given the choice between intelligent design and evolution - evolution is clearly the best choice."

Both can be true. One may of course dispute how "intelligent" the design is, but try to create a universe and see how you do.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It depends on the deity, but it seems like most people at that point would want contact with said deity. Interaction, connection...then perhaps information or heuristics. And most theisms offer practices that are supposed to enhance connection and perhaps even the receiving of the latter.

Doesn't your response assume we're talking about a deity that could be interacted with?

No, it states that it seems (to me I could have added) that most people at that point - when they are convinced the deity exists - would want to contact the deity. And I said before that it depends on the deity. Which included the potential that it would be one that could nto be contacted.

That is it appears your response to my question would be (or perhaps you're only saying "some people believe that") "in addition to accepting the existence of God, you must also realize that this God can be contacted/interacted with/connected with".

The OP seems to be addressing theists. It assumes for the sake of argument that one or 'us' is/are convinced that that God exists. Most theists believe there are ways to contact and get closer to God. It seems to me most people, when convinced there is a deity, would be convinced by this or that theist, and since most theists believe there is a way to make contact, I think the processes that lead to this would be a priority for most people who just went from agnostic or atheistic or just unconcerned to being theists. I might be wrong, though I kinda doubt it. If we are trying to guess what the next step would be for this 'us' I think it would often be such practices.

Isn't it also possible that God exists as a prime mover, but God isn't something/someone that can be connected with?

In the abstract, sure.

It seems to me that this prime mover could have consciousness, but not a personality as we understand it.

I think the latter quality could still leave room for contact. I doubt dogs understand out personalities, at least not in full, but they can communicate with us and be communicated with. Given that most versions of God paint God as having some incredible levels of knowledge and wisdom, this also would seem to leave room for potential communication, even is we do not grasp the whole or even much of the personality of this deity.

[MAYA EL]

No matter how far you go back eventually you get to the point before the big bang before anything anyone cant think up and you have to confront the idea/thought "something had to make the stuff stuff is made out of ".

...either that, or this stuff has "always existed".

And for me I believe that a all creator created what we call reality and all that goes along with it.

...so then, who created this creator? ...or has this creator "always existed"?

1. So in either, and any case, something has "always existed"? ...agreed?
2. So now then, who/what has "always existed"? Is it...

• a) the "stuff" of the universe?, ...or
  b) a "creator" of the stuff of the universe? ...or
  c) a "greater God" that created the creator that then created the stuff of the universe?

It seems to me, that first of all, something has "always existed" (as there ain't no way to avoid this simple truth!) and secondly, if we apply Occams Razor, then it seems most probable that it is the "stuff" of the universe that has "always existed". Adding Gods/creators only puts us out further on the limb.

...agreed?

>>...either that, or this stuff has "always existed".<<

Physical matter itself I'm sure at one point had to be created but like everyone else at best it's just a guess.
The human habit of creating time is merely a concept that we all share and it doesn't actually exist in itself it is merely how the mind makes sense of "past" experiences much like a filing cabinet in order to keep track of important information so then to think in terms of how many billions of years old the Cosmos are is pointless because the answer is governed by the opinion of the majority vote.


>>>...so then, who created this creator? ...or has this creator "always existed?<<<

I am merely temporarily assigning a name to the subject in order to make it possible to communicate about "it"
In a group fashion to wear all parties know that they are talking about the same "thing" but it is by no means what I consider to be the name of "it/God" because that which has a name has a creator and because we are talking about the most high Superior entity of all then that would have to be that which has always been there for "it" has no name.

>>>1. So in either, and any case, something has "always existed"? ...agreed?<<<

Yes I feel that something has always existed especially when you remove the concept of time .

>>>2. So now then, who/what has "always existed"? Is it...
A- the "stuff" of the universe?, ...or
B- a "creator" of the stuff of the universe? ...or
C- a "greater God" that created the creator that then created the stuff of the universe?<<<

stuff is merely stuff it had to be created for a purpose so that means something created it and so it is clearly not the all Creator but merely the tools in which the all Creator uses because I feel that are reality and everything in it is a concept in the mind of the all creator( for lack of a better explanation )because words cannot properly grasp the situation to put it into context and at best it gives a scaled-down simplistic metaphorical representation.

>>>seems to me, that first of all, something has "always existed" (as there ain't no way to avoid this simple truth!) and secondly, if we apply Occams Razor, then it seems most probable that it is the "stuff" of the universe that has "always existed". Adding Gods/creators only puts us out further on the limb.

...agreed?<<<

Yes "something " has most likely always been. However that doesn't necessarily mean all that we know in the Cosmos is that "something".
And in regard to "Occams Razor" I try my best to avoid Concepts created by people I've never met or are even still alive because I find it very unphilosophical to use other philosophers Concepts to apply to my particular situation in life because I feel that a true philosopher creates his own understanding now that doesn't mean that it can't lineup with philosophers of the past and as a matter fact quite often Concepts will lineup with pre-existing philosophical Concepts and that's fine as long as the conclusion was rendered without doctrinal manipulation/ pre-existing knowledge on the situation . And if a concept that I have happens to line up almost identical a with a famous pre-existing concept I will refer to that Concept in order to not have to explain my view point.

[MAYA EL]

No matter how far you go back eventually you get to the point before the big bang before anything anyone cant think up and you have to confront the idea/thought "something had to make the stuff stuff is made out of " .

Isn't it the case that something has always existed? (If you're right, the something that made the stuff that stuff is made of must have always existed). Couldn't that something be the universe itself? That is, isn't it possible that the universe always existed- in that case that the universe always existed, it existed in a different form before the big bang.

Yes absolutely especially seeing as how time is a concept that we have created.

[anonymous66]

anonymous66: "Isn't it also possible that God exists as a prime mover, but God isn't something/someone that can be connected with? It seems to me that this prime mover could have consciousness, but not a personality as we understand it."

If God is Consciousness - omniscience is an attribute commonly ascribed to Him - than we can't help but be connected with Him (I think Karpel Tunnel alluded to that), but the connection is an unconscious impersonal one unless it somehow becomes otherwise, through some sort of spiritual realization.

In Hindu philosophy there is the concept of the Avatar, i.e., God incarnate, God personified, as in Jesus Christ. He is God realized (knows the Divine) but being human we can relate to him, he's not just some airy abstract concept read about in a book. Of course Jesus the historical figure is that way too, so one must look through the glare to see te light.

anonymous66: "That is, if given the choice between intelligent design and evolution - evolution is clearly the best choice."

Both can be true. One may of course dispute how "intelligent" the design is, but try to create a universe and see how you do.

Felix
It would be interesting to do a survey of all the different views of God that occur in the world's religion.

I accept that evolution and a prime mover are compatible concepts.

[anonymous66]

No, it states that it seems (to me I could have added) that most people at that point - when they are convinced the deity exists - would want to contact the deity. And I said before that it depends on the deity. Which included the potential that it would be one that could nto be contacted.

The OP seems to be addressing theists. It assumes for the sake of argument that one or 'us' is/are convinced that that God exists. Most theists believe there are ways to contact and get closer to God. It seems to me most people, when convinced there is a deity, would be convinced by this or that theist, and since most theists believe there is a way to make contact, I think the processes that lead to this would be a priority for most people who just went from agnostic or atheistic or just unconcerned to being theists. I might be wrong, though I kinda doubt it. If we are trying to guess what the next step would be for this 'us' I think it would often be such practices.

In the abstract, sure. I think the latter quality could still leave room for contact. I doubt dogs understand out personalities, at least not in full, but they can communicate with us and be communicated with. Given that most versions of God paint God as having some incredible levels of knowledge and wisdom, this also would seem to leave room for potential communication, even is we do not grasp the whole or even much of the personality of this deity.

Even saying "we're talking about a deity" is an answer to the question in my OP. It contains the assertion- when we talk about believing in God- we mean a deity. As other people have noted, a prime mover is also a possibility. That is, when some people talk about God- they refer to a prime mover- not a deity with a personality.

And that's another answer to the question in my OP. The idea of a personality is also often tacked on to "belief in God". That is, when some people talk about God belief in God, they mean a deity with a personality.

We've discussed 2 more additions to "belief in God". This prime mover must also be conceived of as a deity with a personality- or so some would have us believe.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Even saying "we're talking about a deity" is an answer to the question in my OP. It contains the assertion- when we talk about believing in God- we mean a deity. As other people have noted, a prime mover is also a possibility. That is, when some people talk about God- they refer to a prime mover- not a deity with a personality.

And that's another answer to the question in my OP. The idea of a personality is also often tacked on to "belief in God". That is, when some people talk about God belief in God, they mean a deity with a personality.

We've discussed 2 more additions to "belief in God". This prime mover must also be conceived of as a deity with a personality- or so some would have us believe.

That's all peachy. So it might not be the case that once convinced, you are convinced that it is something one can communicate with. Even then it is somettimes something that one might want to be closer to. But I am nto sure why my answer, which contains an 'if' hasn't been responded to yet. IOW in those cases where the theist convinced you there is a God, and that God is something one can be closer to or communcate with - which is most versions of God believe in out there - then I think most people would want to take that step.

IOW you are respnding to me as if the only possibility is a prime mover, so my 'assumption' which I did not make, rules out actually responding to what I wrote, other than to dismiss it.

If you are interested only in a discussion of what one would or would not do if there is only a God that one cannot communicate with or in some way experience greater closeness to...fine. That's a valid discussion. But the title of the thread - addressing theists, who in turn have a wide range of versions of Gods but most of those versions and the most popular ones include communicate and greater intimacy as possibilities - I am not sure why you can't address the point I made.

But sure, if you now, after being convinced by a theist believe in a God that one cannot communicate with or get closer to, I am not sure what the next steps would be. It seems less important. Such a belief likely has no moral or outcome attendant beliefs. Not how to be a better person or how to experience life better attendant beliefs. No rules, no afterlife - generally . no need for practices of any kind, no particular goals. It's like finding out, for most of us, about dark matter. Tomorrow is pretty much the same day.