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

[Sy Borg]

I think this question demands clarification.
Such as;
1) Which idea of god.
2) What do you mean god?
3) One of many or singular?
4) Are you really asking Why god?
5) How does anyone understand any idea?

A few posts ago, Sy Borg mentioned "particular Gods", or something like that. I think this illustrates, and perhaps clarifies, the subject matter of this topic. To a particular theist, God is "particular". I.e. that theist has their own conception /idea of God. But as philosophers, looking at theism, or some aspect thereof, we look at God as a more 'amorphous' concept, taking any and all particular ideas of God and combining them, or averaging them out. I think this answers — perhaps only partly? — your questions 1–3.

No wonder He is amorphous! Polytheism has the capability of endowing gods and goddesses with shape, form, and purpose.

I would love to reply to you, but I'm not really sure what it is that you're saying. I commented that philosophers considering God must consider a 'typical' or 'averaged-out' God, and not use any particular conception of God. [Unless our intention is to consider one particular interpretation, of course.] This is in contrast to the individual believer, who does have a very particular idea of the God they believe in.

So where does polytheism come into this?

Averaging out is dicey. The universe's deity supply appears to be much like its energy supply - when you average all the deities out, they equal zero. If you look at all creeds, there are almost no universals, which is why there are so many different notions. You end up analysing a model of a deity or deities that no one believes in, where your proofs will be readily dismissed by any theist as regards their own deity.

It's not just about the particular qualities that people give to their deity. Gods, like us us, are generally best defined with a collection of qualities that makes us unique, not particular qualities we share with others.

[Sosein]

“God” as ground of being, as primary consciousness of the cosmos, as the One of which we are all a part, would not seem so distant.

I think the quoted above ether has some form of reality or is illusion. While i think i get your point, i dont believe god to be more or less distant then ever.

You express the typical +theists' attitude to eternity as better, truer, and more beautiful than the temporal world.

If i assume the big bang to be true - nature would arise from then. And if i futher assume that what arises must pass and that the universe will perish at some point, then how can nature not be called transitory ?

Actually i believe everything to be qual in truth, since truth is absolute. If enernity is better or more beatiful depends on your imagination. I do believe all imaginations towards god to be wrong, tho.

[Stoppelmann]

“God” as ground of being, as primary consciousness of the cosmos, as the One of which we are all a part, would not seem so distant.

I think the quoted above ether has some form of reality or is illusion. While i think i get your point, i dont believe god to be more or less distant then ever.

Thanks for taking my words out of context...

[EricPH]

I understand God to be the creator of all that is seen and unseen. We can call God whatever we like, we can give him whatever nature we like, but we can't change God.

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, “I am who I am.

[Belindi]

“God” as ground of being, as primary consciousness of the cosmos, as the One of which we are all a part, would not seem so distant.

I think the quoted above ether has some form of reality or is illusion. While i think i get your point, i dont believe god to be more or less distant then ever.

You express the typical +theists' attitude to eternity as better, truer, and more beautiful than the temporal world.

If i assume the big bang to be true - nature would arise from then. And if i futher assume that what arises must pass and that the universe will perish at some point, then how can nature not be called transitory ?

Actually i believe everything to be qual in truth, since truth is absolute. If enernity is better or more beatiful depends on your imagination. I do believe all imaginations towards god to be wrong, tho.

But The Big Bang IS natural. There is no reason to presume that a supernatural big powerful Person made nature. Nothing created Nature. If Nature is transitory then there will be nothing instead of something. If Nature stops then there will be no people to have ideas about God or gods.

Imagination is not to be confused with fantasy, which is what you did, above.

It seems you have been trained not to be sceptical about what you have been told about God, and you have not been taught about pantheism. Pantheism is the idea that God and Nature are the same.

[Sosein]

But The Big Bang IS natural. There is no reason to presume that a supernatural big powerful Person made nature. Nothing created Nature. If Nature is transitory then there will be nothing instead of something. If Nature stops then there will be no people to have ideas about God or gods.

Imagination is not to be confused with fantasy, which is what you did, above.

It seems you have been trained not to be sceptical about what you have been told about God, and you have not been taught about pantheism. Pantheism is the idea that God and Nature are the same.

Your making alot of assumptions about my person, which is pretty weird but o.k.
If i assume Nature to be uncreated, therefore nature must be eternal itself, since what is not created - must have always been, right ? But then big bang cant be true, because its literally what brought everything we like to call nature to existence.
And yeah, at some point before humans evolved, there were no people to have ideas, believe or even think about god or gods, but why would that matter ? If god is true, it always was - is - and will be, no matter what anybody thinks.

In the bible it says "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image" - i believe that to be true. Also what is the differnce between imagination and fantasy ? I always thought they are kind of synonyms.

Lastly - of course i know about pantheism - i see it as some kind of relativistic atheism. Because when everything is god, then nothing really is.

[Belindi]

But The Big Bang IS natural. There is no reason to presume that a supernatural big powerful Person made nature. Nothing created Nature. If Nature is transitory then there will be nothing instead of something. If Nature stops then there will be no people to have ideas about God or gods.

Imagination is not to be confused with fantasy, which is what you did, above.

It seems you have been trained not to be sceptical about what you have been told about God, and you have not been taught about pantheism. Pantheism is the idea that God and Nature are the same.

Your making alot of assumptions about my person, which is pretty weird but o.k.
If i assume Nature to be uncreated, therefore nature must be eternal itself, since what is not created - must have always been, right ? But then big bang cant be true, because its literally what brought everything we like to call nature to existence.
And yeah, at some point before humans evolved, there were no people to have ideas, believe or even think about god or gods, but why would that matter ? If god is true, it always was - is - and will be, no matter what anybody thinks.

In the bible it says "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image" - i believe that to be true. Also what is the differnce between imagination and fantasy ? I always thought they are kind of synonyms.

Lastly - of course i know about pantheism - i see it as some kind of relativistic atheism. Because when everything is god, then nothing really is.

Sorry. I meant only to refer to cultural influences that affect you as they do everybody during such times as beliefs are formed. Everybody, including those who don't describe their beliefs, has some foundation of beliefs which come from the culture in which they have been immersed, namely parents, peers, and schools, the whole 'village'.

Imagination is often confused with fantasy. Imagination invents and creates what is possible, good, and true, and so carries forward human knowledge and wisdom. Fantasy, although entertaining and interesting, is impossible or even sometimes immorally irresponsible.

The difference between your belief system and mine is that I believe God or Nature is created by human thought, whereas you think God created human thought. In practice this does not matter very much . However what does matter is what you have mentioned----idolatry.

Idolatry is not simply bowing down before statues and jewelled crowns and material stuff like that. More importantly idolatry is submission to one's beliefs as if the beliefs are Truth Itself. Uncertainty protects against idolatry.

Pantheists are not atheists and some pantheists might take offence at being called atheists. Pantheists do not believe nature lacks order but that everything is nature which is an ordered system.

[Pattern-chaser]

Polytheism solves the problem of disparate ideas of what God is. There can be a personification for every need and every natural force. All I'd have to do is chose from the wide range on offer. The disadvantage of polytheism is there is no centre for social control, no overarching moral code. I understand moral and social control pertained to Roman emperors who were deified by the Imperial Cult. The Imperial Cult is similar to the monarchy cult although the former is more powerful.

I have tried to think of a typical or averaged- out type of God, and I find the lowest common denominator is Cosmos (or nature) as opposed to Chaos(or randomness). With regard to affect, the feeling of awe may be the lowest common denominator of God attributes.

Ah, OK. That is, in general terms, at least, compatible with my own perspective that all Gods humans have ever identified offer a particular view of some aspect(s) of the one, ineffable, God.

[Pattern-chaser]

I commented that philosophers considering God must consider a 'typical' or 'averaged-out' God, and not use any particular conception of God. [Unless our intention is to consider one particular interpretation, of course.] This is in contrast to the individual believer, who does have a very particular idea of the God they believe in.

Averaging out is dicey. The universe's deity supply appears to be much like its energy supply - when you average all the deities out, they equal zero. If you look at all creeds, there are almost no universals, which is why there are so many different notions. You end up analysing a model of a deity or deities that no one believes in, where your proofs will be readily dismissed by any theist as regards their own deity.

It's not just about the particular qualities that people give to their deity. Gods, like us us, are generally best defined with a collection of qualities that makes us unique, not particular qualities we share with others.

Hmm. I suggest that, in the case of God, there can be no "analysis" — there is no data after all, no evidence to analyse! — and therefore no "proofs", and no firm and justified conclusions.

[Pattern-chaser]

I understand God to be the creator of all that is seen and unseen. We can call God whatever we like, we can give him whatever nature we like, but we can't change God.

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, “I am who I am.

Couldn't God have said, just as easily, "Pattern-chaser is who he is", and offered just as much useful information? [I.e. none.]

[LuckyR]

I commented that philosophers considering God must consider a 'typical' or 'averaged-out' God, and not use any particular conception of God. [Unless our intention is to consider one particular interpretation, of course.] This is in contrast to the individual believer, who does have a very particular idea of the God they believe in.

Averaging out is dicey. The universe's deity supply appears to be much like its energy supply - when you average all the deities out, they equal zero. If you look at all creeds, there are almost no universals, which is why there are so many different notions. You end up analysing a model of a deity or deities that no one believes in, where your proofs will be readily dismissed by any theist as regards their own deity.

It's not just about the particular qualities that people give to their deity. Gods, like us us, are generally best defined with a collection of qualities that makes us unique, not particular qualities we share with others.

Hmm. I suggest that, in the case of God, there can be no "analysis" — there is no data after all, no evidence to analyse! — and therefore no "proofs", and no firm and justified conclusions.

Gods, like most human ideas, are purely subjective, hence have as many definitions as humans who have ever lived. Not unlike "beauty" or "intelligence".

[Sy Borg]

I commented that philosophers considering God must consider a 'typical' or 'averaged-out' God, and not use any particular conception of God. [Unless our intention is to consider one particular interpretation, of course.] This is in contrast to the individual believer, who does have a very particular idea of the God they believe in.

Averaging out is dicey. The universe's deity supply appears to be much like its energy supply - when you average all the deities out, they equal zero. If you look at all creeds, there are almost no universals, which is why there are so many different notions. You end up analysing a model of a deity or deities that no one believes in, where your proofs will be readily dismissed by any theist as regards their own deity.

It's not just about the particular qualities that people give to their deity. Gods, like us us, are generally best defined with a collection of qualities that makes us unique, not particular qualities we share with others.

Hmm. I suggest that, in the case of God, there can be no "analysis" — there is no data after all, no evidence to analyse! — and therefore no "proofs", and no firm and justified conclusions.

Theologians may beg to differ :) One can analyse any character of mythology. Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Buddha etc. The only one you needd to be careful about is Allah because some idiot Islamic wannabe might try to kill you to earn his place in heaven with seventy-two virgins (who are presumably in hell).

[Belindi]

Polytheism solves the problem of disparate ideas of what God is. There can be a personification for every need and every natural force. All I'd have to do is chose from the wide range on offer. The disadvantage of polytheism is there is no centre for social control, no overarching moral code. I understand moral and social control pertained to Roman emperors who were deified by the Imperial Cult. The Imperial Cult is similar to the monarchy cult although the former is more powerful.

I have tried to think of a typical or averaged- out type of God, and I find the lowest common denominator is Cosmos (or nature) as opposed to Chaos(or randomness). With regard to affect, the feeling of awe may be the lowest common denominator of God attributes.

Ah, OK. That is, in general terms, at least, compatible with my own perspective that all Gods humans have ever identified offer a particular view of some aspect(s) of the one, ineffable, God.

Yes. And in this age of reason we ought to choose a better range of aspects of God so that the problem of evil no longer exists.

[EricPH]

I understand God to be the creator of all that is seen and unseen. We can call God whatever we like, we can give him whatever nature we like, but we can't change God.

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, “I am who I am.

Couldn't God have said, just as easily, "Pattern-chaser is who he is", and offered just as much useful information? [I.e. none.]

The real meaning of 'One God' is profound and beyond my understanding. Christians know there is only one Jesus Christ, yet we have thousands of splinter groups worshipping him in our own way. Then we have an understanding of God through the eyes of every other religion. Every prayer that has ever been said, has been heard by the same 'One God'.

I truthfully believe that God cares about each and every one of us, despite our differences. We just have to learn to care for each other.

[Belindi]

I commented that philosophers considering God must consider a 'typical' or 'averaged-out' God, and not use any particular conception of God. [Unless our intention is to consider one particular interpretation, of course.] This is in contrast to the individual believer, who does have a very particular idea of the God they believe in.

Averaging out is dicey. The universe's deity supply appears to be much like its energy supply - when you average all the deities out, they equal zero. If you look at all creeds, there are almost no universals, which is why there are so many different notions. You end up analysing a model of a deity or deities that no one believes in, where your proofs will be readily dismissed by any theist as regards their own deity.

It's not just about the particular qualities that people give to their deity. Gods, like us us, are generally best defined with a collection of qualities that makes us unique, not particular qualities we share with others.

Hmm. I suggest that, in the case of God, there can be no "analysis" — there is no data after all, no evidence to analyse! — and therefore no "proofs", and no firm and justified conclusions.

Theologians may beg to differ One can analyse any character of mythology. Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Buddha etc. The only one you needd to be careful about is Allah because some idiot Islamic wannabe might try to kill you to earn his place in heaven with seventy-two virgins (who are presumably in hell).

These are all gods that someone has defined. Muhammad is not called The Holy Prophet for any superficial reason. Muhammad is said to have received God's intentions without any Muhammad-subjectivity. Despite this clever juxtaposition of God and Muhammad, Islam is very explicit about the danger of idolatry in the important sense of 'idolatry' so that Allah, unlike the Christian God, is never defined.