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

[JackDaydream]

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?

To me, God is the creator. Plain and simple. People have all different sorts of concepts of God such as the highest imaginable thing, etc. trying to make an argument for His existence but at the end of the day, they have to show the concept of God that they accepted and argue in His favor is in fact the creator.

The various concepts of 'God' differ subjectively and how they are used. Of course, if one is presenting an argument to try to persuade others there is need to come up with evidence or logical arguments, which are different, because one is about reason and the other is about empirical proof or validation. Sometimes, the two get mixed up. Nevertheless, each person comes to their own personal conclusions, which doesn't depend on others' acceptance. These conclusions may be modified, with or without interaction with other people. Ultimately, each of us is accountable to oneself in such beliefs, although I do find that discussion on forums gives me a basis for ongoing critical reflection.

[Sy Borg]

God is clearly a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one. The real question is why Christians would have a problem with that.

After all, Christians place major emphasis on the importance of human consciousness. This reverence for human consciousness is so intense that theologians like George Pell claimed that abortion was far worse than child molestation. That is, he believed that ending even a potential human mind, let alone an actualised one, is worse than the lifetime psychological torment, sometimes ending in suicide, experienced by his friends' victims (and, likely, his own victims, despite his eventual acquittal on technicalities).

Like the most hard-line positivists, most Christians are too materialistic to think of the subjective domain as mattering beyond the personal, in the greater scheme of things. To them, God can only be relevant or important if it physically exists. To them, the idea that God is purely subjective is a denial of its existence.

The situation is richly ironic.

It's problem that Christians have a problem with that. It's hopeless trying to explain to indoctrinated Christian adults that Christian doctrine is interfused with justification of worldly power and the mental mind set that allows people to be controlled by established authority.

It is ironic that Christians often see materialism as the enemy, yet the reason for it is actually their own materialism, that they unconsciously devalue the value of subjectivity as compared with objective reality as much as any hard-line logical positivist.

It's very easy to manipulate the superstitious and many in history have pushed superstitions so as to better manipulate what would have been a truly wild bunch back in those eras. All a leader need do is dangle eternal pleasure and eternal torment in front of the people and they become pliable and easily led. There will always be a few cynical holdouts who continue to largely think for themselves but most will succumb to the manipulation of their fears.

It's a clever circular stitch-up. You must believe or you go to Hell. If you question this "fact", then it's not the false doctrine but a failure of faith. So guilt-ridden Christians pray and pray, hoping to find the powerful belief they see others feign.

Theists could remove all their problems if they simply accepted that God is entirely subjective and not some super being that created the universe and, especially, if they could accept that the subjective realm is actually critically important. The fact that science needs to put subjective consciousness aside should not distract us from the fact that subjectivity is everything to us, is IS us.

[Belindi]

God is clearly a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one. The real question is why Christians would have a problem with that.

After all, Christians place major emphasis on the importance of human consciousness. This reverence for human consciousness is so intense that theologians like George Pell claimed that abortion was far worse than child molestation. That is, he believed that ending even a potential human mind, let alone an actualised one, is worse than the lifetime psychological torment, sometimes ending in suicide, experienced by his friends' victims (and, likely, his own victims, despite his eventual acquittal on technicalities).

Like the most hard-line positivists, most Christians are too materialistic to think of the subjective domain as mattering beyond the personal, in the greater scheme of things. To them, God can only be relevant or important if it physically exists. To them, the idea that God is purely subjective is a denial of its existence.

The situation is richly ironic.

It's problem that Christians have a problem with that. It's hopeless trying to explain to indoctrinated Christian adults that Christian doctrine is interfused with justification of worldly power and the mental mind set that allows people to be controlled by established authority.

It is ironic that Christians often see materialism as the enemy, yet the reason for it is actually their own materialism, that they unconsciously devalue the value of subjectivity as compared with objective reality as much as any hard-line logical positivist.

It's very easy to manipulate the superstitious and many in history have pushed superstitions so as to better manipulate what would have been a truly wild bunch back in those eras. All a leader need do is dangle eternal pleasure and eternal torment in front of the people and they become pliable and easily led. There will always be a few cynical holdouts who continue to largely think for themselves but most will succumb to the manipulation of their fears.

It's a clever circular stitch-up. You must believe or you go to Hell. If you question this "fact", then it's not the false doctrine but a failure of faith. So guilt-ridden Christians pray and pray, hoping to find the powerful belief they see others feign.

Theists could remove all their problems if they simply accepted that God is entirely subjective and not some super being that created the universe and, especially, if they could accept that the subjective realm is actually critically important. The fact that science needs to put subjective consciousness aside should not distract us from the fact that subjectivity is everything to us, is IS us.

There is a reasonable concept of God which is not superstitious or compliant of conservative establishments. The reasonable God is a human construct as we agree. (Is this the same as your "subjective" ?) and is devoid of the attribute of power to intervene in history. The Judeo-Christian moral code is generally good if the intentions of the hearers of it are welfare-socialist, environmentalist, and respect the scientific enlightenment and its values.

The theological Doctrine of Free Will must be abandoned, as this is the root cause of the punitive and authoritarian attitude in Christian and post-Christian societies. The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement is uncomfortably close to human sacrifice and is poorly understood so it needs radical revision in its mythology and expression.

[Sy Borg]

God is clearly a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one. The real question is why Christians would have a problem with that.

After all, Christians place major emphasis on the importance of human consciousness. This reverence for human consciousness is so intense that theologians like George Pell claimed that abortion was far worse than child molestation. That is, he believed that ending even a potential human mind, let alone an actualised one, is worse than the lifetime psychological torment, sometimes ending in suicide, experienced by his friends' victims (and, likely, his own victims, despite his eventual acquittal on technicalities).

Like the most hard-line positivists, most Christians are too materialistic to think of the subjective domain as mattering beyond the personal, in the greater scheme of things. To them, God can only be relevant or important if it physically exists. To them, the idea that God is purely subjective is a denial of its existence.

The situation is richly ironic.

It's problem that Christians have a problem with that. It's hopeless trying to explain to indoctrinated Christian adults that Christian doctrine is interfused with justification of worldly power and the mental mind set that allows people to be controlled by established authority.

It is ironic that Christians often see materialism as the enemy, yet the reason for it is actually their own materialism, that they unconsciously devalue the value of subjectivity as compared with objective reality as much as any hard-line logical positivist.

It's very easy to manipulate the superstitious and many in history have pushed superstitions so as to better manipulate what would have been a truly wild bunch back in those eras. All a leader need do is dangle eternal pleasure and eternal torment in front of the people and they become pliable and easily led. There will always be a few cynical holdouts who continue to largely think for themselves but most will succumb to the manipulation of their fears.

It's a clever circular stitch-up. You must believe or you go to Hell. If you question this "fact", then it's not the false doctrine but a failure of faith. So guilt-ridden Christians pray and pray, hoping to find the powerful belief they see others feign.

Theists could remove all their problems if they simply accepted that God is entirely subjective and not some super being that created the universe and, especially, if they could accept that the subjective realm is actually critically important. The fact that science needs to put subjective consciousness aside should not distract us from the fact that subjectivity is everything to us, is IS us.

There is a reasonable concept of God which is not superstitious or compliant of conservative establishments. The reasonable God is a human construct as we agree. (Is this the same as your "subjective" ?) and is devoid of the attribute of power to intervene in history. The Judeo-Christian moral code is generally good if the intentions of the hearers of it are welfare-socialist, environmentalist, and respect the scientific enlightenment and its values.

The theological Doctrine of Free Will must be abandoned, as this is the root cause of the punitive and authoritarian attitude in Christian and post-Christian societies. The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement is uncomfortably close to human sacrifice and is poorly understood so it needs radical revision in its mythology and expression.

Ditching free will is perhaps too ambitious, given that people feel like they have free will. That's a hard sell.

Instead, we could target the fact that free will is falsely painted as black & white - total freedom v hard determinism. Due to quantum weirdness, there some small element of uncertainty / chaos must be present in each of us, although the influence may well be trivial enough to be academic, given the overwhelmingly powerful twin impacts of genetics and conditioning.

[Belindi]

It's problem that Christians have a problem with that. It's hopeless trying to explain to indoctrinated Christian adults that Christian doctrine is interfused with justification of worldly power and the mental mind set that allows people to be controlled by established authority.

It is ironic that Christians often see materialism as the enemy, yet the reason for it is actually their own materialism, that they unconsciously devalue the value of subjectivity as compared with objective reality as much as any hard-line logical positivist.

It's very easy to manipulate the superstitious and many in history have pushed superstitions so as to better manipulate what would have been a truly wild bunch back in those eras. All a leader need do is dangle eternal pleasure and eternal torment in front of the people and they become pliable and easily led. There will always be a few cynical holdouts who continue to largely think for themselves but most will succumb to the manipulation of their fears.

It's a clever circular stitch-up. You must believe or you go to Hell. If you question this "fact", then it's not the false doctrine but a failure of faith. So guilt-ridden Christians pray and pray, hoping to find the powerful belief they see others feign.

Theists could remove all their problems if they simply accepted that God is entirely subjective and not some super being that created the universe and, especially, if they could accept that the subjective realm is actually critically important. The fact that science needs to put subjective consciousness aside should not distract us from the fact that subjectivity is everything to us, is IS us.

There is a reasonable concept of God which is not superstitious or compliant of conservative establishments. The reasonable God is a human construct as we agree. (Is this the same as your "subjective" ?) and is devoid of the attribute of power to intervene in history. The Judeo-Christian moral code is generally good if the intentions of the hearers of it are welfare-socialist, environmentalist, and respect the scientific enlightenment and its values.

The theological Doctrine of Free Will must be abandoned, as this is the root cause of the punitive and authoritarian attitude in Christian and post-Christian societies. The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement is uncomfortably close to human sacrifice and is poorly understood so it needs radical revision in its mythology and expression.

Ditching free will is perhaps too ambitious, given that people feel like they have free will. That's a hard sell.

Instead, we could target the fact that free will is falsely painted as black & white - total freedom v hard determinism. Due to quantum weirdness, there some small element of uncertainty / chaos must be present in each of us, although the influence may well be trivial enough to be academic, given the overwhelmingly powerful twin impacts of genetics and conditioning.

People do feel they have free will. However people also feel vengeful and murderous towards wrongdoers but their feelings are not permitted to dictate their actions. It's possible to teach children, at least, that crime generally is to be addressed as causes of crime, and not as a matter of bad people.

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic says either there is a God who has the knowledge and power to create everything, or there is no God. You could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the flip of a coin.

IME, binary thinking like this is almost always mistaken, and a mistake. You have — unknowingly, I assume — ignored other possibilities, perhaps many of them?

The thread asks, 'how do I understand the idea of God'? And I replied as above.

My understanding of 'One God' is that we are all created and loved by the same God, the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean, caring for each other despite all our differences.

The problem with too many gods, means we are separated from each other. This is not an option I can sign up to.

You make too much of my point, which is more limited than you seem to think.

You said, quite specifically, that "either there is a God who has the knowledge and power to create everything, or there is no God." My response is that it isn't either/or because there are many more than the 2 possibilities you have mentioned.

I have no quarrel at all with you answering the OP's question as you see fit. It only seemed to me that you described a multi-facetted thing as being merely binary in nature, and I commented to that effect.

[Pattern-chaser]

People have all different sorts of concepts of God [...] but at the end of the day, they have to show the concept of God [...] is in fact the creator.

Only if those people believe in a Creator-God. Many, like me, do not, but are still believers.

[Bahman]

People have all different sorts of concepts of God [...] but at the end of the day, they have to show the concept of God [...] is in fact the creator.

Only if those people believe in a Creator-God. Many, like me, do not, but are still believers.

What do you believe?

[Pattern-chaser]

What do you believe?

I venerate God in the form of Gaia, whom I understand as an emergent 'property' of the universe. Thus, She is not a Creator-God. The 4D spacetime universe that science describes so well is Her 'body', and She is its 'mind'; the mind, spirit, and soul of the universe.

[Bahman]

What do you believe?

I venerate God in the form of Gaia, whom I understand as an emergent 'property' of the universe. Thus, She is not a Creator-God. The 4D spacetime universe that science describes so well is Her 'body', and She is its 'mind'; the mind, spirit, and soul of the universe.

She cannot be its mind and at the same time an emergent property. Or perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by emergent property or the statement that She is its mind.

[Pattern-chaser]

What do you believe?

I venerate God in the form of Gaia, whom I understand as an emergent 'property' of the universe. Thus, She is not a Creator-God. The 4D spacetime universe that science describes so well is Her 'body', and She is its 'mind'; the mind, spirit, and soul of the universe.

She cannot be its mind and at the same time an emergent property. Or perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by emergent property or the statement that She is its mind.

When the universe became able to support a mind of its own, She emerged. Perhaps when life became established? I know not.

[Viswa_01210]

Sorry for late reply.

Truth, good, and beauty are aspects of the same whole. If you were to experience beauty you would also experience good and truth.If you were to experience truth you would also experience beauty and good.If you were to experience good you would also experience truth and beauty.

Okay. Let's go by your way. Why your faith don't want to include "bad and beast" with "Truth" like Truth included Good and Beauty?
If one considers "World", there is not just Beauty, but also Earthquakes, etc. That is the holistic view.
Why negate "Bad and Beast and etc." from "Truth"

I can't be 100% sure that your particular creed is untrue. It does however lack reason, because the law you espouse depends on the authority of others such as priests, kings, and male relations, and this is unrealistic.

Lack Reason?? Authority??
Thank God, I didn't give Authority to Sensual Experience like People Ignorantly do. Authority to one who is Truly Peaceful and never affected by any action/experience, is True Authority/Security I feel.
Male Relations? See, I never hate Woman. I respect them. Even I respect Men, and on the same time point out what's misunderstood/lag/etc. as I said about Woman. I think you might need my female friends phone numbers. Never have I been rude to them or hate them. I'm not like the Hindutva Male/Afghan Men hating Women.

You don't know about Me or My Behaviour, and falsely assuming how I live by misunderstanding what I try to point out.

[Viswa_01210]

This "may way or the highway" attitude is fairly standard for partisan theists.

I never said "My path is the right". Never do religions.
They say, "If you be in this path, you shall not be attached to World and suffer, ignorant of who you are". Do one really want to find out Truth, or to suit 'Something' to Truth which one like?

Theist beliefs are maintained by refusing to consider information that may undermine those beliefs. By contrast, when science is done well, it does not lock itself into dogma but considers all new information, and is prepared to change if new data turns up. This open-minded approach is incompatible with the commitment demanded by religions.

Open-Minded? Do you need that? And bring havoc to Earth by that Open-Minded? Can't you see how much destruction that Open-Minded bring to Body,Mother Earth, etc.?

An analogy would be marriage. A partner commits to another, and they deliberately don't try to find out who they missed on by making a commitment. On a personal level that is positive. It allows one to settle and get on with life, instead of restlessly seeking an upgrade. By contrast, science done well has no commitment; science is simply a machine designed to increase human knowledge of how physical reality works.

Increase Human Knowledge and so destroy the way of Living/Society by Divorces, Drugs, etc.?

See, this is not just Commitment between Partners but raising Good Children to Society. No Husband or Wife need to find out what they deliberately missed, but have to put effort so that raise a Better Child for Society as they are. Why to find out any "missing aspect"? What do Parents need more than Children's Betterment?

You see, this modern society, sees Marriage only as "Agreement between Two" and not about The Whole Family and Neighbours and Society as a whole. They think like they are bounded/tied-up/imprisoned with another, but fail to see what they have to contribute for the world/society, for "prosper" of Society/World.

There are some potential social, professional and personal advantages to be gained from believing in obvious superstition, but that does not change the fact that it is obvious superstition.

Not about Gain, but Truth. It's about reality of World. Religions may differ in many point, but agree uniquely about World/Sensual. People fail to see the "Bad" about "Life" by many Faiths - Science and others provide. Religions try to point out this "Bad" things about "World", and turn Onwards within Oneself.

As Science goes on Ignorantly finding out many machines,etc., Nothing had stopped destruction it creates. Science only destroys things by providing Knowledge and Pleasure. Nothing more. Why do Science find out curious things, if they can harm Mother Earth and Life in it? Isn't this Ignorance? Why People call it as Knowledge, if only destruction remains from such Ignorance?

[Bahman]

What do you believe?

I venerate God in the form of Gaia, whom I understand as an emergent 'property' of the universe. Thus, She is not a Creator-God. The 4D spacetime universe that science describes so well is Her 'body', and She is its 'mind'; the mind, spirit, and soul of the universe.

She cannot be its mind and at the same time an emergent property. Or perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by emergent property or the statement that She is its mind.

When the universe became able to support a mind of its own, She emerged. Perhaps when life became established? I know not.

What is mind in your opinion?

[Sy Borg]

This "may way or the highway" attitude is fairly standard for partisan theists.

I never said "My path is the right". Never do religions.
They say, "If you be in this path, you shall not be attached to World and suffer, ignorant of who you are". Do one really want to find out Truth, or to suit 'Something' to Truth which one like?

Theist beliefs are maintained by refusing to consider information that may undermine those beliefs. By contrast, when science is done well, it does not lock itself into dogma but considers all new information, and is prepared to change if new data turns up. This open-minded approach is incompatible with the commitment demanded by religions.

Open-Minded? Do you need that? And bring havoc to Earth by that Open-Minded? Can't you see how much destruction that Open-Minded bring to Body,Mother Earth, etc.?

An analogy would be marriage. A partner commits to another, and they deliberately don't try to find out who they missed on by making a commitment. On a personal level that is positive. It allows one to settle and get on with life, instead of restlessly seeking an upgrade. By contrast, science done well has no commitment; science is simply a machine designed to increase human knowledge of how physical reality works.

Increase Human Knowledge and so destroy the way of Living/Society by Divorces, Drugs, etc.?

See, this is not just Commitment between Partners but raising Good Children to Society. No Husband or Wife need to find out what they deliberately missed, but have to put effort so that raise a Better Child for Society as they are. Why to find out any "missing aspect"? What do Parents need more than Children's Betterment?

You see, this modern society, sees Marriage only as "Agreement between Two" and not about The Whole Family and Neighbours and Society as a whole. They think like they are bounded/tied-up/imprisoned with another, but fail to see what they have to contribute for the world/society, for "prosper" of Society/World.

There are some potential social, professional and personal advantages to be gained from believing in obvious superstition, but that does not change the fact that it is obvious superstition.

Not about Gain, but Truth. It's about reality of World. Religions may differ in many point, but agree uniquely about World/Sensual. People fail to see the "Bad" about "Life" by many Faiths - Science and others provide. Religions try to point out this "Bad" things about "World", and turn Onwards within Oneself.

As Science goes on Ignorantly finding out many machines,etc., Nothing had stopped destruction it creates. Science only destroys things by providing Knowledge and Pleasure. Nothing more. Why do Science find out curious things, if they can harm Mother Earth and Life in it? Isn't this Ignorance? Why People call it as Knowledge, if only destruction remains from such Ignorance?

These are simple value judgements based on the spurious assumption - tradition good, modernity bad.

However, history tells us what traditional religions bring - war, torture, coercion, dictatorships and environmental degradation.