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

[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.

Theologians may beg to differ One can analyse any character of mythology. Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Buddha etc.

Hmm, OK. ... On what might that "analysis" be based, do you think, bearing in mind the complete lack of evidence*?



* — Evidence that a scientist would consider to be evidence, just to be clear.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

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.

Yes. It seems to me that the variations on the theme of the so-called 'Problem of Evil' show us first inventing the concept of God — but not inventing God Herself, of course. That would be an entirely different thing! — and then trying to chop down our own invention, perhaps with the idea that we were/are 'testing' the concept we have invented, to see if it works...?

There are other related and equally-daft questions too, such as wondering if an infinitely strong God could move an infinitely heavy object. ... Or how many angels can/could dance on the head of a pin!

[Belindi]

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.

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.

Yes. It seems to me that the variations on the theme of the so-called 'Problem of Evil' show us first inventing the concept of God — but not inventing God Herself, of course. That would be an entirely different thing! — and then trying to chop down our own invention, perhaps with the idea that we were/are 'testing' the concept we have invented, to see if it works...?

There are other related and equally-daft questions too, such as wondering if an infinitely strong God could move an infinitely heavy object. ... Or how many angels can/could dance on the head of a pin!

Possibility is the ground of being, therefore one at least of God's attributes must be possibility.

The attribute we need to abandon is omnipotence. When we do so the other traditional attributes are mutually coherent.

[Count Lucanor]

I am writing this thread because often in discussions there is a lack of clarity over who or what 'God' is conceptualized. Also, I have been reading 'Philosophy Now' (October/November 2022), which has a number of articles on the God in philosophy.

One writer, Benedict O'Connell, in an article, 'God and Humility' points to the limitation of knowledge about God.He says, 'In stating that "God exists", we are professing something that only a being like God, who is omniscient could know.' O'Connell draws upon the Medieval theologian, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, of God being 'ineffable, and the argument that the nature of God cannot be communicated.

One other aspect of exploration is the difference between a belief in a personal God who has an intimate relationship with individual human beings and of Deism. In 'Deism: Traditional & Contemporary', Robert Griffiths argues that, 'Deism is belief in the existence of a creator God who does not interfere in the universe, and in particular, in the lives of people.' He suggests that the potential audience attracted towards this philosophy position in the current time may be 'Christians and other religious people who are becoming confused or alienated by doctrinal disputes and are instead looking for a rationally simple "core" to their beliefs.'

The idea of God is a big topic, but I am trying to keep the outpost fairly short. As I am asking you about your view my own is, in summary, that the idea of God is about whatever source of life comes from, including mind and matter. However, I am not sure that this implies any disembodied being as such, separate from nature and emergent consciousness. The various images of God, as deities, are the symbolic ways of seeing the underlying nature of reality. Both theism, atheism are human constructs. I am not sure that the split between theism and deism works fully because it seems to split off the past from the ongoing processes of unfolding of consciousness and life experiences and interpretation of such experiences. Deism may work if it involves a God. What are your own thoughts on the concept of God?

“God” is a wild card, you can put any content or meaning to your desire and convenience, because you’ll never bump into it, it all depends on your imagination.

[Pattern-chaser]

Possibility is the ground of being, therefore one at least of God's attributes must be possibility.

The attribute we need to abandon is omnipotence. When we do so the other traditional attributes are mutually coherent.

But those who believe in a Creator-God almost rely on God being omnipotent, don't they? Could God create the universe if He wasn't omnipotent? [There, that's another of those stupid questions! ]

N.B. I agree with you, I'm just wondering about the beliefs of those who think God created the universe...?

[Belindi]

Possibility is the ground of being, therefore one at least of God's attributes must be possibility.

The attribute we need to abandon is omnipotence. When we do so the other traditional attributes are mutually coherent.

But those who believe in a Creator-God almost rely on God being omnipotent, don't they? Could God create the universe if He wasn't omnipotent? [There, that's another of those stupid questions! ]

N.B. I agree with you, I'm just wondering about the beliefs of those who think God created the universe...?

Yes. if you do away with omnipotence you have to relocate God from transcending nature to an aspect of nature. They would never agree. But they are a dying culture.

[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 need 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.

Only overtly. This misconception is driven by the inherent materialistism of the Abrahamic worldview. Simply, the Abrahamics figure that if they don't describe an entity physically, then they haven't described it. It is reminiscent of Islam hiding women's faces and bodies so men can pretend that women's desirous parts don't exist for long enough to keep their libido under control.

Note that Muslims claim that it's impossible to know anything about Allah, yet they manage to describe Allah in great detail because they "know" exactly what Allah likes and dislikes, what the deity wants in any given situation. Knowing someone's mind is, of course, far more penetrative than knowing someone's physical qualities.

Likewise, the idolising of Allah, Mohammed, the Koran, Mecca, mosques etc (not to mention Christianity's superheroes - Jesus, Mary, God, etc) is really just plain old idolatry, sans the statues and figureens.

Again, it's Abrahamic materialism, pretending that if an idol is not familiarly physical, then it is not an idol. The edicts about graven images and the like were largely about distinguishing Muslim and Christian brands from pagan sects, because there wasn't a lot of difference back then and they could easily be confused. Early Abrahamic religions borrowed liberally from their pagan neighbours, and then basically spat on them.

[EricPH]

N.B. I agree with you, I'm just wondering about the beliefs of those who think God created the universe...?

The bigger question is not what we believe, but what our beliefs inspire us to do. It sounds no different from asking about the beliefs of those who believe there is no God.

People believe in science, and we know science is very good at making both bombs and medication. So what does science inspire anyone to do?

[Sy Borg]

N.B. I agree with you, I'm just wondering about the beliefs of those who think God created the universe...?

The bigger question is not what we believe, but what our beliefs inspire us to do. It sounds no different from asking about the beliefs of those who believe there is no God.

People believe in science, and we know science is very good at making both bombs and medication. So what does science inspire anyone to do?

Eric, this thread is "How Do You Understand the Idea of 'God'?" so, no, the behaviours your beliefs inspire are not very relevant to the subject matter. So, if you wish to helpfully engage on this topic, maybe you should directly answer Pattern-Chaser's question?

After all, most of here will be well aware that you are in that small minority of Christians who want to help the vulnerable, rather than just other members of the flock, not to mention the growing number of "prosperity gospel" Christians who believe that the poor and vulnerable get what they deserve, and thus do not believe in charity.

So what of the actual beliefs of those who ostensibly claim God created the universe? Do they actually believe it? Or might what their claimed belief really just a mechanism to induce certain desired attitudes and behaviours? The way your describe Christianity above brings to mind a piece of hardware choosing its software. There don't actually seem to be any objective beliefs regarding the nature of the purported belief object, ie. God.

Or maybe your reply to P-C means you agree with me that God is an entirely subjective phenomenon?

[EricPH]

Or maybe your reply to P-C means you agree with me that God is an entirely subjective phenomenon?

Sadly, I agree with you to a point. We are all lead the way we want to follow, and its very tempting to cherry pick the passages that seem to justify what we want to do. It has been said that a theologian is anyone who has an opinion about God. It has also been said that a theologian reveals more about their own nature than they do about God.

When I read about the huge wealth of tv evangelists, it makes me feel physically sick. They steal their wealth from the poor. I cannot believe George Bush, when he claimed God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Anyone who says there is no God, won't believe George either.

When I read the Bible or any other scriptures, I feel it is more beneficial to seek a greatest good moral interpretation. Our interpretations and beliefs can influence how we act. I truthfully believe that you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God. That has to include Adolph and George Bush.

I try and understand God / Jesus though the greatest commandments.

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by the greatest commandments, he could do nothing greater. But how did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loves himself? How did Jesus look at the man who was nailing him to the cross and love him as he loves himself?

We know that Jesus prayed on the cross; forgave them Father, they know not what they do. To forgive is a great thing to do; but loving someone as you love yourself seems so far above just forgiving them. Could the ‘Forgiveness of Sins Hang on the Greatest Commandments?’ All the law of God hangs and depends on the greatest commandments.

My 2c.

[Sy Borg]

Or maybe your reply to P-C means you agree with me that God is an entirely subjective phenomenon? :)

Sadly, I agree with you to a point. We are all lead the way we want to follow, and its very tempting to cherry pick the passages that seem to justify what we want to do. It has been said that a theologian is anyone who has an opinion about God. It has also been said that a theologian reveals more about their own nature than they do about God.

When I read about the huge wealth of tv evangelists, it makes me feel physically sick. They steal their wealth from the poor. I cannot believe George Bush, when he claimed God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Anyone who says there is no God, won't believe George either.

When I read the Bible or any other scriptures, I feel it is more beneficial to seek a greatest good moral interpretation. Our interpretations and beliefs can influence how we act. I truthfully believe that you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God. That has to include Adolph and George Bush.

I try and understand God / Jesus though the greatest commandments.

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by the greatest commandments, he could do nothing greater. But how did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loves himself? How did Jesus look at the man who was nailing him to the cross and love him as he loves himself?

We know that Jesus prayed on the cross; forgave them Father, they know not what they do. To forgive is a great thing to do; but loving someone as you love yourself seems so far above just forgiving them. Could the ‘Forgiveness of Sins Hang on the Greatest Commandments?’ All the law of God hangs and depends on the greatest commandments.

My 2c.

When you say "sadly" it reminds me of how I felt when I realised that there was no hope of finding complex life on Venus and Mars. We hope for the magic of the old myths but we finally have to accept that the magic only happens in your head. Outside reality is all is cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology and civics. \

Still, if belief is a matter of cherry-picking, then you have to accept those requiring "donations" to buy a place in heaven in the afterlife or using religion as a rationale for war. Clearly, not all cherry-picking is equal, or done with the same intent. Cherry-picking doctrines to gain power has been a favourite trick of depots and dictators to justify their atrocities for millennia.

Ultimately, the Bible and other ancient texts are ancient bodies of knowledge. As is typical of ancient times - the material they produced was inconsistent, metaphorical, apocryphal and riddled with historical errors. In that sense, like any other body of knowledge, ancient texts are tools that one may use as one will, or not use at all.

[Belindi]

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 need 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.

Only overtly. This misconception is driven by the inherent materialistism of the Abrahamic worldview. Simply, the Abrahamics figure that if they don't describe an entity physically, then they haven't described it. It is reminiscent of Islam hiding women's faces and bodies so men can pretend that women's desirous parts don't exist for long enough to keep their libido under control.

Note that Muslims claim that it's impossible to know anything about Allah, yet they manage to describe Allah in great detail because they "know" exactly what Allah likes and dislikes, what the deity wants in any given situation. Knowing someone's mind is, of course, far more penetrative than knowing someone's physical qualities.

Likewise, the idolising of Allah, Mohammed, the Koran, Mecca, mosques etc (not to mention Christianity's superheroes - Jesus, Mary, God, etc) is really just plain old idolatry, sans the statues and figureens.

Again, it's Abrahamic materialism, pretending that if an idol is not familiarly physical, then it is not an idol. The edicts about graven images and the like were largely about distinguishing Muslim and Christian brands from pagan sects, because there wasn't a lot of difference back then and they could easily be confused. Early Abrahamic religions borrowed liberally from their pagan neighbours, and then basically spat on them.

I am a little disappointed in some Muslims' inconsistency in disdaining idolatry and also idolising The Holy Prophet and the Koran.
When Muslims "describe Allah in great detail" they are following their belief that science and nature are the aspects of Allah that we can know.
Without Muslim philosophers and their intellectual Christian fellows the work of Aristotle would probably not have been remembered and used as the philosophical basis of science. There is a difference between on the one hand Islamic scholarship notably in the historical Cordoba Caliphate, and fundamentalist militarised Islam on the other hand. In modern times Islam never had an Enlightenment and sadly Muslims are hobbled by this lack and are vulnerable to political demagogues. Islam, like Xianity, needs a reformation.

[JackDaydream]

Theologians may beg to differ One can analyse any character of mythology. Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Buddha etc. The only one you need 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.

Only overtly. This misconception is driven by the inherent materialistism of the Abrahamic worldview. Simply, the Abrahamics figure that if they don't describe an entity physically, then they haven't described it. It is reminiscent of Islam hiding women's faces and bodies so men can pretend that women's desirous parts don't exist for long enough to keep their libido under control.

Note that Muslims claim that it's impossible to know anything about Allah, yet they manage to describe Allah in great detail because they "know" exactly what Allah likes and dislikes, what the deity wants in any given situation. Knowing someone's mind is, of course, far more penetrative than knowing someone's physical qualities.

Likewise, the idolising of Allah, Mohammed, the Koran, Mecca, mosques etc (not to mention Christianity's superheroes - Jesus, Mary, God, etc) is really just plain old idolatry, sans the statues and figureens.

Again, it's Abrahamic materialism, pretending that if an idol is not familiarly physical, then it is not an idol. The edicts about graven images and the like were largely about distinguishing Muslim and Christian brands from pagan sects, because there wasn't a lot of difference back then and they could easily be confused. Early Abrahamic religions borrowed liberally from their pagan neighbours, and then basically spat on them.

I am a little disappointed in some Muslims' inconsistency in disdaining idolatry and also idolising The Holy Prophet and the Koran.
When Muslims "describe Allah in great detail" they are following their belief that science and nature are the aspects of Allah that we can know.
Without Muslim philosophers and their intellectual Christian fellows the work of Aristotle would probably not have been remembered and used as the philosophical basis of science. There is a difference between on the one hand Islamic scholarship notably in the historical Cordoba Caliphate, and fundamentalist militarised Islam on the other hand. In modern times Islam never had an Enlightenment and sadly Muslims are hobbled by this lack and are vulnerable to political demagogues. Islam, like Xianity, needs a reformation.

I lived in a Muslim oriented area when in South London and found such a wide spectrum of ideas encompassed. Some people, and I am not saying you, tend to stereotype Muslims. For example, so many people presume that Muslim men treat women in a derogatory way and it doesn't follow that all Muslim men, especially those growing up in the West, do so. People who are Islamic in Western society are as influenced by ideas and science just as people from Christian backgrounds are. Some hold onto the traditional values while others may question religious ideas and philosophy deeply. I have found that especially true of Muslim gay men and Muslim women in general, possibly on the basis of experience of marginalisation amongst their own community.The marginalised may be those who explore and analyse the assumptions of religion so much because the incongruities of belief impinge on daily life.

[Pattern-chaser]

I lived in a Muslim oriented area when in South London and found such a wide spectrum of ideas encompassed. Some people, and I am not saying you, tend to stereotype Muslims. For example, so many people presume that Muslim men treat women in a derogatory way and it doesn't follow that all Muslim men, especially those growing up in the West, do so. People who are Islamic in Western society are as influenced by ideas and science just as people from Christian backgrounds are. Some hold onto the traditional values while others may question religious ideas and philosophy deeply. I have found that especially true of Muslim gay men and Muslim women in general, possibly on the basis of experience of marginalisation amongst their own community. The marginalised may be those who explore and analyse the assumptions of religion so much because the incongruities of belief impinge on daily life.

I think we are veering away from God, toward the practical details of how human believers express their beliefs. I think we are all aware of the difference between God, and the practical implementations of religious hierarchies and organisations?

[JackDaydream]

I lived in a Muslim oriented area when in South London and found such a wide spectrum of ideas encompassed. Some people, and I am not saying you, tend to stereotype Muslims. For example, so many people presume that Muslim men treat women in a derogatory way and it doesn't follow that all Muslim men, especially those growing up in the West, do so. People who are Islamic in Western society are as influenced by ideas and science just as people from Christian backgrounds are. Some hold onto the traditional values while others may question religious ideas and philosophy deeply. I have found that especially true of Muslim gay men and Muslim women in general, possibly on the basis of experience of marginalisation amongst their own community. The marginalised may be those who explore and analyse the assumptions of religion so much because the incongruities of belief impinge on daily life.

I think we are veering away from God, toward the practical details of how human believers express their beliefs. I think we are all aware of the difference between God, and the practical implementations of religious hierarchies and organisations?

You are right to say that we may be veering away from God. The one aspect of this which may be crucial though, is how much do these veerihgs away from God influence theists and atheists? In other words, to what extent is the question of the existence of God a pure question of logic, or based on experiences how such philosophies impact on daily reality, especially one's own personal experience of such beliefs or ideas?