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

[Viswa_01210]

The way in which you describe the idea of God demonstrates what makes the concept a philosophy problem. The reason is that the idea of 'truth' and 'knowledge' are difficult areas with so much disagreement..

If a real Buddha and Jesus meet, there won't be any disagreement. I see really no disagreement between religious views.

The problem is, "why?". Why really people want to inquire about God? What's the reason? For fun? For just Experiences? (transcendental/foolish)? Shall we discuss that before instead of discussing the philosophy of God?

Why we/philosophers/scientists/humans want to inquire about God? What's the purpose? Shall we start a new thread for that?

[EricPH]

Also, getting back to the idea of 'God' itself, there is the question to what extent is the concept useful philosophically?

Can there be one purpose so great, that possibly even God could do nothing greater.

Could God love each and every one of us as he loves himself? The following is just a collection of words to challenge the mind to think. If you choose to read further, then search for something greater.

Creation.
Here is a childlike and yet profound way to challenge the power of the greatest commandments; when looking for one single purpose that might impel God to create the universe and life.
Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God looking out into the vast empty void of space. He has the power to create anything he wants, what is the greatest good thing that God can create?
God could create all the stars and planets and be the supreme builder. He could create plants; and be the finest gardener. God could create the animal kingdom; and be the complete farmer. God could create children in his own image, making God the greatest Father. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image? God could love each and everyone of his children as he loves himself. Can there be any greater reason to have children? Could God love us more than he loves himself?
In a way, God loves us more than he loves himself, because he was willing to send his Son to die for us. In a contradicting way, God knows that he is the greatest being in the universe and retains the power of heaven or hell over us. Could there be any greater purpose for God to create the universe and life?

What greatest purpose could God set mankind?
We cannot love God as we love ourselves, because that would bring God down to our level, so we have the greatest commandment to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. If God loves everyone as he loves himself, we are given the second greatest commandment to do likewise.
Did the greatest commandments have a greatest meaning for God first, before he gave them to us?
When you ask the question; why did Christ say they are the greatest commandment, can it possibly be because Jesus - God cannot do anything greater?
We can marvel at the great attention to detail that is evident in everything from the microscopic cells of life and right up to the giant structures of galaxies. Can you find any greater single purpose for all this to exist? Challenge the above statements in your mind in an honest way, test them against any religious beliefs, and test them against any form of logic.

Just my 2c.

[JackDaydream]

The way in which you describe the idea of God demonstrates what makes the concept a philosophy problem. The reason is that the idea of 'truth' and 'knowledge' are difficult areas with so much disagreement..

If a real Buddha and Jesus meet, there won't be any disagreement. I see really no disagreement between religious views.

The problem is, "why?". Why really people want to inquire about God? What's the reason? For fun? For just Experiences? (transcendental/foolish)? Shall we discuss that before instead of discussing the philosophy of God?

Why we/philosophers/scientists/humans want to inquire about God? What's the purpose? Shall we start a new thread for that?

The issue of why people enquire may involve the psychological, social and political aspects. Sometimes, these may not be separated and evaluated carefully, because as human beings we exist in the various dimensions of life. The issue which I see as being essential in the question which you raise about the enquiry about God is the use and abuse of such a concept. In particular, I wonder about the way in which the idea of God is used psychologically, philosophically and in social or political contexts. This applies to atheist perspectives too and probably involves the question of how do religious or philosophical ideas function as ideologies? There is also the question of understanding ideological framework and the aspiration towards 'truth' which throws the issues back into the domain of philosophy and the philosophy of religion.

[JackDaydream]

Confusion reigns over the whole question.
St. Thomas Aquinas once argued that since “what the substance of God is remains in excess of our intellect and therefore is unknown to us,” it logically implies that “the highest human knowledge of God is to know that one does not know God”

Now reason can say certain definite things by reason alone but the Infinity of God (in-finite meaning not with end) means we cannot define from the verb definire ‘set bounds to’ ) God
certain premises that are known either in themselves or can be known by philosophic investigation. These premises can be known by the pagan. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:

The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Summa theologiae Ia, q. 2, a. 2, ad 1.

Saint Thomas Aquinas calls our natural knowledge of things the “preambles of faith” or the “presuppositions of faith” (cf. III Sent. d. 24, a. 3, sol. 1). The preambles or presuppositions of faith include the premises that God exists, that God is one, incorporeal, and intelligent. None of these facts pertain to the Gospel and they are not articles of the Faith

This question shows what the necessity and help it is that Jesus is the answer to what is God like? JOhn 14:9 He who has seen Me has seen the Father

Short Answer : God is revealed in Jesus, the Truth is a Person.

Thanks for this reply and I think that it was held in the moderation queue and I have only just found it. The question of faith in relation to the idea of God is important. There is probably a large distinction between blind faith and that which is substantiated by reason. The whole area of logic and reasoning in conjunction with psychological explanations arises, especially in the issue of what is explained or attributed to God. The example of Jesus is important, especially in bringing down ideas of the transcendent to the human sphere. The idea of God as a person, as opposed to an abstract entity is extremely different. It also involves a very different metaphysics and epistemology, with the question being to what extent may a human being try to ask or evoke answers to their needs, almost as if evoking magic and the supernatural?

[JackDaydream]

Also, getting back to the idea of 'God' itself, there is the question to what extent is the concept useful philosophically?

Can there be one purpose so great, that possibly even God could do nothing greater.

Could God love each and every one of us as he loves himself? The following is just a collection of words to challenge the mind to think. If you choose to read further, then search for something greater.

Creation.
Here is a childlike and yet profound way to challenge the power of the greatest commandments; when looking for one single purpose that might impel God to create the universe and life.
Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God looking out into the vast empty void of space. He has the power to create anything he wants, what is the greatest good thing that God can create?
God could create all the stars and planets and be the supreme builder. He could create plants; and be the finest gardener. God could create the animal kingdom; and be the complete farmer. God could create children in his own image, making God the greatest Father. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image? God could love each and everyone of his children as he loves himself. Can there be any greater reason to have children? Could God love us more than he loves himself?
In a way, God loves us more than he loves himself, because he was willing to send his Son to die for us. In a contradicting way, God knows that he is the greatest being in the universe and retains the power of heaven or hell over us. Could there be any greater purpose for God to create the universe and life?

What greatest purpose could God set mankind?
We cannot love God as we love ourselves, because that would bring God down to our level, so we have the greatest commandment to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. If God loves everyone as he loves himself, we are given the second greatest commandment to do likewise.
Did the greatest commandments have a greatest meaning for God first, before he gave them to us?
When you ask the question; why did Christ say they are the greatest commandment, can it possibly be because Jesus - God cannot do anything greater?
We can marvel at the great attention to detail that is evident in everything from the microscopic cells of life and right up to the giant structures of galaxies. Can you find any greater single purpose for all this to exist? Challenge the above statements in your mind in an honest way, test them against any religious beliefs, and test them against any form of logic.

Just my 2c.

I appreciate your reply. I think that you raise important questions and my intuitive response is that I simply do not not know. I would say that I certainly don't subscribe to the many of the materialist philosophies which seem so interconnected to atheism. Here, I am arguing that there is a lot which is not understood. Personally, I try to look at the ideas arising in science; philosophy and religion in a balanced fashion. I am not convinced that scientific theory or logic is capable of overthrowing all forms of religious understanding. It may be such a difficult area for philosophical understanding. The idea of God may be seen as filling in the gaps of understanding, and the question may be to what extent do religious or non religious perspectives have the largest philosophical gaps in explanation? To what extent does the idea of God clarify or blur human understanding?

[Belindi]

Confusion reigns over the whole question.
St. Thomas Aquinas once argued that since “what the substance of God is remains in excess of our intellect and therefore is unknown to us,” it logically implies that “the highest human knowledge of God is to know that one does not know God”

Now reason can say certain definite things by reason alone but the Infinity of God (in-finite meaning not with end) means we cannot define from the verb definire ‘set bounds to’ ) God
certain premises that are known either in themselves or can be known by philosophic investigation. These premises can be known by the pagan. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:

The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Summa theologiae Ia, q. 2, a. 2, ad 1.

Saint Thomas Aquinas calls our natural knowledge of things the “preambles of faith” or the “presuppositions of faith” (cf. III Sent. d. 24, a. 3, sol. 1). The preambles or presuppositions of faith include the premises that God exists, that God is one, incorporeal, and intelligent. None of these facts pertain to the Gospel and they are not articles of the Faith

This question shows what the necessity and help it is that Jesus is the answer to what is God like? JOhn 14:9 He who has seen Me has seen the Father

Short Answer : God is revealed in Jesus, the Truth is a Person.

Jesus of Nazareth as (the) manifested revelation from God is what I thought the normal Xian interpretation was. Perfection of man as Christ is what I believe, but as I am not a proper Xian I don't hold that Jesus of Nazareth is uniquely God manifested on Earth. As a non-Xian I believe that God on Earth can be seen in fleeting glimpses of men, other animals, beauty, attempted approximations to scientific truth, and sincere religious quest in a humble attitude of uncertainty.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is possible to feel that God 'ought' to solve problems in nature but that would leave little scope for humans as co-creators. Similarly, it is possible to feel that certain aspects of life, like natural disasters and sickness are thrown upon people.

I find this exclusively human-centric view difficult to understand. What is a "problem in nature"? Is it a problem for the whole world, or does it simply refer to one or more events that humans find inconvenient?

What is a "natural disaster"? Is it a disaster for the world, or (again) an inconvenience for humans? Most sickness is caused by some sort of tiny living thing. So is such a living thing a Bad Thing? ... Or is it just an inconvenience for humans?

If there is a Creator-God, are we really conceited enough to think that this God created the universe, filled with galaxies, stars and planets, and all manner of living entities, just for us? The very idea seems ridiculous.

I cannot see that observing things that humans would prefer otherwise reflects at all on a God who Created the whole Universe.

Is clean, safely-drinkable, water "good"? Is an earthquake, or maybe cancer, "evil"?

To me, it makes no sense to blame a Creator God for those aspects of the universe that are less than optimal for human beings; it's just breathtaking arrogance on our part.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's simple. I never trust Experiences as Trustworthy (most importantly material world), but only Knowledge.

If "Experience" isn't trustworthy, from where do you get your "Knowledge"? [I assume "Knowledge" is somehow trustworthy.]

[JackDaydream]

It is possible to feel that God 'ought' to solve problems in nature but that would leave little scope for humans as co-creators. Similarly, it is possible to feel that certain aspects of life, like natural disasters and sickness are thrown upon people.

I find this exclusively human-centric view difficult to understand. What is a "problem in nature"? Is it a problem for the whole world, or does it simply refer to one or more events that humans find inconvenient?

What is a "natural disaster"? Is it a disaster for the world, or (again) an inconvenience for humans? Most sickness is caused by some sort of tiny living thing. So is such a living thing a Bad Thing? ... Or is it just an inconvenience for humans?

If there is a Creator-God, are we really conceited enough to think that this God created the universe, filled with galaxies, stars and planets, and all manner of living entities, just for us? The very idea seems ridiculous.

I cannot see that observing things that humans would prefer otherwise reflects at all on a God who Created the whole Universe.

Is clean, safely-drinkable, water "good"? Is an earthquake, or maybe cancer, "evil"?

To me, it makes no sense to blame a Creator God for those aspects of the universe that are less than optimal for human beings; it's just breathtaking arrogance on our part.

I am glad that you appreciate the potential problems or limitations of the human-centric aspects of understanding. This is important to prevent these from being seen as more 'ultimate', in the guise of objectivity. The religious arguments have often given rise to a so-called objectivity, with 'God' as the ultimate clause. In contrast, some of the thinkers who have opposed the existence of God have often sought objectivity to back up the rational justification of their arguments. Both theism, atheism and possible alternatives can be used as a form of arrogance.

If anything, philosophy may be about seeing ideas for what they represent logically and psychologically. The connection between ideas and the role which they represent in human understanding may be overlooked, especially in relation to where the concept of God is introduced into philosophy arguments. The apportioning of 'blame' is important here, especially in how much is attributed to a God or human beings.

[Viswa_01210]

If "Experience" isn't trustworthy, from where do you get your "Knowledge"? [I assume "Knowledge" is somehow trustworthy.]

What do you mean by "where"? It is God. Any words, that can take one totally to God, then those words arise from God. God don't provide it, but Knowledge arises of itself from God.

That which take one away from God inthis thoughtful actions, I consider it as desiring Experiences. Whereas, that which take one towards God in this thoughtful actions, I consider it as Knowledge.

Desiring Experiences (spiritual/transcendental/psychological/physical) all are out of Ignorance as a thoughtful action -but there is no end for such desiring experiences, but knowledge arises out of God as a thoughtful action to put an end to both Ignorance and Knowledge itself - and so bring end to desiring.

Experiences come out of Ignorance, but Knowledge comes out of Truth to put an end to Experiences and desiring such.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is possible to feel that God 'ought' to solve problems in nature but that would leave little scope for humans as co-creators. Similarly, it is possible to feel that certain aspects of life, like natural disasters and sickness are thrown upon people.

I find this exclusively human-centric view difficult to understand. What is a "problem in nature"? Is it a problem for the whole world, or does it simply refer to one or more events that humans find inconvenient?

What is a "natural disaster"? Is it a disaster for the world, or (again) an inconvenience for humans? Most sickness is caused by some sort of tiny living thing. So is such a living thing a Bad Thing? ... Or is it just an inconvenience for humans?

If there is a Creator-God, are we really conceited enough to think that this God created the universe, filled with galaxies, stars and planets, and all manner of living entities, just for us? The very idea seems ridiculous.

I cannot see that observing things that humans would prefer otherwise reflects at all on a God who Created the whole Universe.

Is clean, safely-drinkable, water "good"? Is an earthquake, or maybe cancer, "evil"?

To me, it makes no sense to blame a Creator God for those aspects of the universe that are less than optimal for human beings; it's just breathtaking arrogance on our part.

I am glad that you appreciate the potential problems or limitations of the human-centric aspects of understanding. This is important to prevent these from being seen as more 'ultimate', in the guise of objectivity. The religious arguments have often given rise to a so-called objectivity, with 'God' as the ultimate clause.

Yes, and it gives rise to mindless and nonsensical questions like "If God is Good, why does She allow Evil?" Based on what I wrote, in some detail, above, such questions are so far beyond arrogance or conceit that I can't find a word for them. We humans would question the actions of a Being that actually created the entire universe, because it has features that don't suit us? Is there a word for this ... disrespect?

[Pattern-chaser]

N.B. I do not believe in a Creator-God. I am assuming such a Being for the sake of discussion. There are many who believe in such a Being, but I do not.

[Viswa_01210]

The issue of why people enquire may involve the psychological, social and political aspects. Sometimes, these may not be separated and evaluated carefully, because as human beings we exist in the various dimensions of life. The issue which I see as being essential in the question which you raise about the enquiry about God is the use and abuse of such a concept. In particular, I wonder about the way in which the idea of God is used psychologically, philosophically and in social or political contexts. This applies to atheist perspectives too and probably involves the question of how do religious or philosophical ideas function as ideologies? There is also the question of understanding ideological framework and the aspiration towards 'truth' which throws the issues back into the domain of philosophy and the philosophy of religion.

Jack, I can understand what you say here. But, my question of "why" is more important I feel to understand "various dimensions and perspectives".

It's like, when you try to see something with a lens, then different kind of lens you use shows different perspectives. This lens, is the question of "why do people seek God?" is the real game changer causing different perspectives.
Athiest want to enjoy the world without any authority. That's why they seek God with an aim (the aim is the lens they use) to totally disprove existence of God, so that they can do anything by eradicating Authority.

Like this, different "why" (lenses) show different perspective of God.

But, whereas, when I said that to me all religions speak the same thing, there is one accurate lens present to understand this. That lens is, the aim to End sufferings totally and attain Eternal Peace/Satisfaction. When Religions speak deep things, they meet with this same lens, whatever Religion it shall be.

And so, "why people seek God?" is the important thing to understand Philosophy of God, and can reason out why people have different perspective upon God by finding out "why do they want to know God?".
Also, this question, is mostly asked by Guru to a serious disciple, to truly understand the purpose behind that seeking.

Hope I made it clear.

[JackDaydream]

It is possible to feel that God 'ought' to solve problems in nature but that would leave little scope for humans as co-creators. Similarly, it is possible to feel that certain aspects of life, like natural disasters and sickness are thrown upon people.

I find this exclusively human-centric view difficult to understand. What is a "problem in nature"? Is it a problem for the whole world, or does it simply refer to one or more events that humans find inconvenient?

What is a "natural disaster"? Is it a disaster for the world, or (again) an inconvenience for humans? Most sickness is caused by some sort of tiny living thing. So is such a living thing a Bad Thing? ... Or is it just an inconvenience for humans?

If there is a Creator-God, are we really conceited enough to think that this God created the universe, filled with galaxies, stars and planets, and all manner of living entities, just for us? The very idea seems ridiculous.

I cannot see that observing things that humans would prefer otherwise reflects at all on a God who Created the whole Universe.

Is clean, safely-drinkable, water "good"? Is an earthquake, or maybe cancer, "evil"?

To me, it makes no sense to blame a Creator God for those aspects of the universe that are less than optimal for human beings; it's just breathtaking arrogance on our part.

I am glad that you appreciate the potential problems or limitations of the human-centric aspects of understanding. This is important to prevent these from being seen as more 'ultimate', in the guise of objectivity. The religious arguments have often given rise to a so-called objectivity, with 'God' as the ultimate clause.

Yes, and it gives rise to mindless and nonsensical questions like "If God is Good, why does She allow Evil?" Based on what I wrote, in some detail, above, such questions are so far beyond arrogance or conceit that I can't find a word for them. We humans would question the actions of a Being that actually created the entire universe, because it has features that don't suit us? Is there a word for this ... disrespect?

What your post seems to highlight is the way in which some philosophy discussions can seem to try to reduce major problems to simplistic understanding. The whole problem of why a God would allow evil seems to be trying to look for an explanatory 'God' to try to bypass both explanations and the search for innovation. The human concepts of what the idea of God may entail may try to shorcircuit so much. At times, both theism, atheism and other perspectives can seem too neat.

Reality is complex and any philosophy may need to accommodate the irregularities, especially those which throw open the definitive labels of philosophy positions. Whatever exists beyond the human and material may be beyond boxed philosophy definitions. I am not wishing to dismiss philosophy, but it may be that the definitions, logic and arguments are only partial rather than as absolute or definitive. The search for absolutes may be partly arising from the psychological aspects of the arrogance of human consciousness. Whatever exists, whether it may be defined as God, or not, is bound by the logistics and the psychological limitations of the human-centric lens of perception and analysis.

[JackDaydream]

The issue of why people enquire may involve the psychological, social and political aspects. Sometimes, these may not be separated and evaluated carefully, because as human beings we exist in the various dimensions of life. The issue which I see as being essential in the question which you raise about the enquiry about God is the use and abuse of such a concept. In particular, I wonder about the way in which the idea of God is used psychologically, philosophically and in social or political contexts. This applies to atheist perspectives too and probably involves the question of how do religious or philosophical ideas function as ideologies? There is also the question of understanding ideological framework and the aspiration towards 'truth' which throws the issues back into the domain of philosophy and the philosophy of religion.

Jack, I can understand what you say here. But, my question of "why" is more important I feel to understand "various dimensions and perspectives".

It's like, when you try to see something with a lens, then different kind of lens you use shows different perspectives. This lens, is the question of "why do people seek God?" is the real game changer causing different perspectives.
Athiest want to enjoy the world without any authority. That's why they seek God with an aim (the aim is the lens they use) to totally disprove existence of God, so that they can do anything by eradicating Authority.

Like this, different "why" (lenses) show different perspective of God.

But, whereas, when I said that to me all religions speak the same thing, there is one accurate lens present to understand this. That lens is, the aim to End sufferings totally and attain Eternal Peace/Satisfaction. When Religions speak deep things, they meet with this same lens, whatever Religion it shall be.

And so, "why people seek God?" is the important thing to understand Philosophy of God, and can reason out why people have different perspective upon God by finding out "why do they want to know God?".
Also, this question, is mostly asked by Guru to a serious disciple, to truly understand the purpose behind that seeking.

Hope I made it clear.

The lens are complicated, especially in relation to perspectives, ranging from the psychological to the social. Here, I am speaking of how some people have been brought up with ideas of God which can be bound up with so many values, including those about sexuality and other agendas about the social order. Some people who are deviants, such as those who are 'gay' are seen as being outside the plan of God's order. Even within esoteric systems, such as the philosophy of Ouspensky, values about sexuality were subsumed under common norms, just as the dominance of men over women was often unchallenged.

As far gurus are concerned even this is a questionable area. Traditionally spiritual understanding is often conceived in terms of going beyond the ego. But, this is a difficult area because those who have knowledge may be susceptible to the glamours of the inflated ego. This may be the danger of those who build themselves up as experts and spiritual gurus, as 'experts'. Also, what the experts seek may different from what those who are 'ordinary' seek because it may be about status primarily. The nature of status vs knowledge may be important here because 'success' and 'credibility' may be concerns of the ego beyond the principles of spiritual or philosophical knowledge.