Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

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

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#434715
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 8th, 2023, 9:51 am
Sculptor1 wrote: February 7th, 2023, 7:21 am 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?
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 7th, 2023, 9:43 am 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.
Belindi wrote: February 7th, 2023, 6:41 pm 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.
By Sosein
#434722
Stoppelmann wrote: February 8th, 2023, 2:33 am
“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.
Belindi wrote: February 7th, 2023, 6:35 pm
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.
#434742
Sosein wrote: February 8th, 2023, 7:14 pm
Stoppelmann wrote: February 8th, 2023, 2:33 am
“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... :roll:
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts Location: Germany
By EricPH
#434745
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.
By Belindi
#434747
Sosein wrote: February 8th, 2023, 7:14 pm
Stoppelmann wrote: February 8th, 2023, 2:33 am
“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.
Belindi wrote: February 7th, 2023, 6:35 pm
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.
By Sosein
#434761
Belindi wrote: February 7th, 2023, 6:35 pm
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.
By Belindi
#434809
Sosein wrote: February 9th, 2023, 12:49 pm
Belindi wrote: February 7th, 2023, 6:35 pm
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.
#434831
Belindi wrote: February 8th, 2023, 3:59 pm 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.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#434832
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 8th, 2023, 9:51 am 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.
Sy Borg wrote: February 8th, 2023, 4:02 pm 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.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#434833
EricPH wrote: February 9th, 2023, 5:39 am 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.]
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By LuckyR
#434843
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 10th, 2023, 12:46 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 8th, 2023, 9:51 am 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.
Sy Borg wrote: February 8th, 2023, 4:02 pm 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".
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#434847
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 10th, 2023, 12:46 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 8th, 2023, 9:51 am 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.
Sy Borg wrote: February 8th, 2023, 4:02 pm 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).
By Belindi
#434869
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 10th, 2023, 12:42 pm
Belindi wrote: February 8th, 2023, 3:59 pm 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.
By EricPH
#434872
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 10th, 2023, 12:49 pm
EricPH wrote: February 9th, 2023, 5:39 am 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.
By Belindi
#434875
Sy Borg wrote: February 10th, 2023, 3:18 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 10th, 2023, 12:46 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 8th, 2023, 9:51 am 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.
Sy Borg wrote: February 8th, 2023, 4:02 pm 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.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 29

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


When I started reading about your stance on cuttin[…]

If being discourteous and hurtful is more importa[…]

A major claim of feminism is that the Western cult[…]

My concern is simply rational. People differ fro[…]