Philosophy Discussion Forums

I believe in God, not a trinity.

The Roman Empire wanted a unified religion. Jesus was used as a human-like ‘god’ figure to help a huge population of Greco-Roman pagans convert to Jewish monotheism. The pagans believed in human-like gods. By using a human-like form (Jesus) as an image of the true God, the pagans could transfer their thinking from the pagan gods to the true God. It's a parable. The trinity was needed as an attempt to keep the religion "monotheistic" somehow.

Happy to discuss further and many other aspects. There is a joy to knowing the truth about this. I think that this is a gift from God including perhaps from His gift of our ability to reason.

"The truth will set you free" - Rabbi Jesus (or whomever wrote it )

The problem is that the Roman empire "stole" the freedom part and formed a church that met their needs, while the Roman church did keep some elements of truth and the writings of Jesus.

It's all bunk, the lot of it. Humans have invented thousands of gods. All but the most recent bunch are now dead. It's only a matter of time before the current crop of mutually excludive deities will be dead too. Our abilty to reason is a result of having evolved a big brain. Gods had nothing to do with it. Gods were a result of our big brains trying to make sense of the world they found themsleves in before they invented science. It was brains first, and then gods.

Yes, this is the problem. The fact that Christianity may lead people to atheism shows how artificially it was produced in the Roman Empire. I encourage atheists to believe in the one God.

Atheists see no reason to believe in any god. They see gods as neither many nor one. Theists, on the other hand, choose to believe in gods. That's fine if it floats their boat. As long as it doesn't interfere with the way others choose to live their lives.

People who believe in God, believe in the rights of their fellow humans (including freedom of religion), because rights come from God, and not other humans. What principle guides an atheist in this regard?

Most people who are atheists believe in the rights of their fellow humans. However, most atheists would say that human rights are a human invention. Human rights are a result of cultural evolution. Rights do not come from gods. Atheists are guided by their morality. Morality is a result of evolution by natural selection and cultural evolution. Most atheists are good, law abiding citizens. They don't need to fear gods to be good. They are good simply because it's good to be good.

Greg_M wrote: ↑August 9th, 2024, 12:24 am People who believe in God, believe in the rights of their fellow humans (including freedom of religion), because rights come from God, and not other humans. What principle guides an atheist in this regard?

Like millions of other atheists, I simply wish to be a decent person, to try to do the right thing - not just by other people, but to have empathy for organisms, as much as is practicable. Let's face it, if you like philosophy, you need to be a special kind f curmudgeon

This, I believe, goes far over and above that ethical frameworks of many Christians, who too often show kindness towards other Christians, naked hostility to non-Christians and utter ruthlessness towards many other species. Of course, this is not all Christians, just as I am no representative of all atheists.

None of this is easy because we are all born into a situation where we must kill, exploit and out-compete other organisms to survive. So, none of us will ever be truly ethically pure. "Born into sin", if you will. So it goes.

My issue is that we know who our gods are - the Sun and the Earth. They created us, sustain us - they are everything to us, because they ARE us. We ARE the Earth - the thin sapient layer on the planet's hard surface, lying within its gaseous layer.

Despite this, people insist on treating these extraordinary entities as mere objects (never mind that they contain us, plus more) and pretending that some humanoid entity is responsible for it all. It's anthropocentrism. Self absorption. An over-estimation of ourselves and who/what we are.

Having said that, like Dawkins, when I look at the world - most of which is shaped by religion - the cultures based on Christianity are vastly superior in terms of human rights, freedom and general ethics than others, (arguably) except for those based on Buddhism and Hinduism. There is no comparison.

So, while I am an atheist, I am comfortable in societies founded on Christianity. I understand where Christians are coming from. I just cannot embrace superstition. What is your conception of God?

Sy Borg wrote:...we are all born into a situation where we must kill, exploit and out-compete other organisms to survive. So, none of us will ever be truly ethically pure. "Born into sin", if you will. So it goes.

This is the only sense in which the religious notion of innate or congenital sinfulness makes any sense. But, as you say, we are born into it, we have to eat, we had no choice in the matter. Therefore, we are blameless and not sinful, afterall. We can only be culpabale for behaviour over which we have control. We can only be morally culpable for making other beings suffer unnecessarily. What is "necessary" is debatable. Hungry people will eat whatever they can get.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 9th, 2024, 1:52 am ... too often show kindness towards other Christians, naked hostility to non-Christians and utter ruthlessness towards many other species. Of course, this is not all Christians...

Agree. It has even been associated with antisemitism over the centuries. I'm a "Christian" in the sense that I find the teachings that are attributed to Rabbi Jesus to be essential and profound. However, because of Roman influence, some may not be authentic. I think that generally, the teachings related to God, the moral teachings, and the teachings about seeing the "spirit of the law" (the purpose), can be considered authentic. I think that the teaching that promote a theology of Jesus himself, are related to Roman interests (use of Greco-Roman human-like "god" figure, an "image", to raise people's minds to the one God).

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 9th, 2024, 1:52 am What is your conception of God?

God is the conception of all life and existence. We are His conception, not vice versa. Sometimes people may relate God to power and control. Certainly He has the power. However, I think that God neither needs nor has attitudes of "power" as we humans tend to think of it.

Greg_M wrote: ↑August 9th, 2024, 10:27 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 9th, 2024, 1:52 am ... too often show kindness towards other Christians, naked hostility to non-Christians and utter ruthlessness towards many other species. Of course, this is not all Christians...

Agree. It has even been associated with antisemitism over the centuries. I'm a "Christian" in the sense that I find the teachings that are attributed to Rabbi Jesus to be essential and profound. However, because of Roman influence, some may not be authentic. I think that generally, the teachings related to God, the moral teachings, and the teachings about seeing the "spirit of the law" (the purpose), can be considered authentic. I think that the teaching that promote a theology of Jesus himself, are related to Roman interests (use of Greco-Roman human-like "god" figure, an "image", to raise people's minds to the one God).

Personally, my guess is that Constantine's conversion was due to madness from lead poisoning. Originally, Romans wanted to bring the biblical deity into its pantheon, but Christians said no. So the Romans found a way of blending Christianity with their multi-deity paganism. At that time, the empire was already crumbling and "fake news" is a feature of declining societies. Power players use ever more misinformation to manipulate the ever more restless people, and silence any attempts at contradicting their lies as "misinformation".

One thing I will give the trinity. It does seem that many things seem to break down into three in this world but to apply such principles to an unknowable deity that, if existent, would be as far beyond our comprehension as chartered accountancy would be to an amoeba would seem speculative at best.

Greg_M wrote: ↑August 9th, 2024, 10:27 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 9th, 2024, 1:52 am What is your conception of God?

God is the conception of all life and existence. We are His conception, not vice versa. :-) Sometimes people may relate God to power and control. Certainly He has the power. However, I think that God neither needs nor has attitudes of "power" as we humans tend to think of it.

Cheers. How do you mean "the conception of all life and existence"? How does God differ from, say, the Sun, the Earth or black holes, for that matter?

I can't say that I know. However, I can share thoughts that hopefully can be useful. Humans have a mind. Humans can think. We have ideas. We design and construct things after we envision them.

I think that the "envisioning" of God is all part of the plan. Unlike how we "get a new idea", God's "conceptions" are all part and parcel of the whole of existence ("I am") all at "once" (no time concept). Past, future, present, time, space - all human things.

Humans "experience" things. God has no experiences, rather infinite joy, "I am".

We believe that God knows us. "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."

So, we may not know Him, but I believe that He knows us, better than we know ourselves. He placed us on planet earth here in this galaxy and universe with no known edge. We have plenty of clues here, I think.

Some say, we may be in a simulation. I have faith that we are not. I think that this simulation argument is helpful, because by contrast we may be able to connect with our familial and spiritual sense of God who knows us.

Some say, well something can come from nothing. I think that's illogical and existence is evidence of God for me. However, I don't think that I really rely solely on that. Belief in God can be more based on the "spiritual sense" of "the plan". Then perhaps we see creation as part of "the plan".

I don't believe in the trinity. I see it an invention of Christianity to theologically categorize the prior use of Jesus as an "image" for Greco-Romans.

In the Roman Empire, there were many gods and and sons of gods, both among the Greco-Roman pagan religions as well as the emperors who were ascribed "divinity" and "divi filius", "son of a god". For the needs of unified religion in the Roman Empire ("all things to all people"), Jesus was used as a human-like ‘god’ figure to help a huge population of Greco-Roman pagans convert to Jewish monotheism. The pagans believed in human-like gods. By using a human-like form (Jesus) as an image of the true God, the pagans could transfer their thinking from the pagan gods to the true God. It's a parable. This should not be surprising. In the Roman Church we see a pattern of substitution of a pagan artifact of worship for a Christian one. It's a simple swap out. We see this in holidays, prayer, statues, and many other aspects. So the substitution of a human-like image of God, in place of human-like pagan god figure, for adaptation to monotheism, is a normal part of the pattern.

Sorry for the slow reply, Greg.

As I read your description, I kept thinking of the Sun. In the past, the thought "The Sun is not alive, it is life" has occurred to me but it's not an idea I'd try to (or know how to) defend.

I do, however, believe that the Earth (and, by extension, Earthly life) is actually part of the Sun, not separate bits around it. The Earth is a layer and we are the very thin sapient layer on the boundary of the crust, hydrosphere and atmosphere ... all the most interesting things happen at boundaries.

I agree with you we're not in a simulation but it amuses me to think that the gamesters are saving power by not fully rendering anything that is not being observed (ie. interacted with).

Anyone who says something came from nothing is mistaken. Lawrence Krauss once ironically used that term and it stuck. In truth, Krauss went on for hundreds of pages to explain say that what we refer to as "nothing" is actually something - subtle roiling energies. To use a terrible non sequitur - nothing does not exist - but you will know what I mean.

Your rejection of the trinity and your assessment of how it came about make sense to me. Even Jesus's alleged birthday falls on Saturnalia. What a coincidence :)

JackDaydream wrote: ↑July 27th, 2023, 2:11 pm I see this as a fairly complex area of philosophy, especially in thinking about the way Christianity developed and those who wish to oppose many elements of Christian thinking. Part of the complexity is the interplay between beliefs about the existence of 'God' and the historical facts about the narrative facts of the Gospel stories. Having grown up in a Christian, and Catholic, background, I have struggled with both aspects and their interplay.

In considering the belief in the existence of God which is essential to Christianity, it is worth being aware of the belief in Jahweh of the Old Testament, especially as revealed to Moses in the form of The Ten Commandments. What may be important in thinking of the image of God as Jahweh, is the idea of personal communication with 'God', and in Christian thinking, this was embodied in the form of Jesus Christ, who lived and was resurrected from the dead.

As a child, I grew up and accepted the narrative unquestioningly, not wishing to be a 'doubting Thomas'. However, further along in my philosophy quest, I am not just questioning the existence of 'God', but also the narratives of the Gospel and the facts, as opposed to symbolic stories.

My own reading leads me into the areas of Gnosticism and the Grail Tradition, especially the area between fact and mythology. Part of this may involve careful scholarship, as there is so much literature. This includes literature of the early Church, including the canon of the Bible, as well as the dialogue between mainstream thinking and Gnosticism. It may also be intricate because one of the early Church fathers, Origen, was believed to have some sympathy with the outlawed Gnosticism.

I am aware that for many the debates of the early Christian Church may seem redundant to philosophy. However, the war between theism and atheism rages on. Where does Christ, and Christianity come in, especially the resurrection story? How much is symbolic and where does this lies in the picture of facts and philosophical speculation? Also, how does the Christian narrative come into play in thinking about the existence of God?

In the twentieth first century, there has been so much demystification and deconstruction. Where does the idea of 'God' come into this, and does it involve the debate between idealism and materialism? Where do the Biblical ideas come into this, in understanding their construction and deconstruction?

Seldom is it to gain the path, the Dhamma-eye, by seeing that, what ever constructed is subject to decay.

Sy Borg wrote:Anyone who says something came from nothing is mistaken. Lawrence Krauss once ironically used that term and it stuck. In truth, Krauss went on for hundreds of pages to explain say that what we refer to as "nothing" is actually something - subtle roiling energies. To use a terrible non sequitur - nothing does not exist - but you will know what I mean.

Whether there has ever been nothing is an interesting question. I guess it depends on what is meant by “nothing”. I take “nothing” to mean no matter and no energy, no space and no time. That is certainly hard for me to imagine. But maybe we don’t need to.

Physicists talk about a “quantum foam” that is said to always occupy empty space. It is hypothesized that “virtual particles” of matter and antimatter constantly and spontaneously pop into existence and annihilate each other in a roiling ‘foam”. I’m in no position to say how likely that is to be true but, if it is true, then there is no such thing as truly empty space and, perhaps, no such thing as nothing. The "Casimir effect" Is said to constitute empirical evidence for the existence of the quantum foam.

And, if the quantum foam exists, it might be relevant to the question of how the universe came about. If there is a balance of positive and negative particles that constantly annihilate each other, then the net effect would be zero. But maybe, for some reason at some time in the past, there were more matter particles than antimatter particles produced and the universe we know was born. In which case, the issue of how something could come from nothing could be sidelined.

But ultimately, we’d still have to ask where the quantum foam came from. Unless it has always existed. If the quantum foam has always existed, it would be a brute fact and just part of the laws of nature that we’d have to accept. We don’t know yet. We’ll just have to wait and see. One thing I’m sure of, though, is that if the physicists still haven’t worked it out, then it is unlikely anyone else has.

The religious say that their god magicked the whole shebang into existence. I don’t find that explanation very satisfying. But, who knows?

I guess this is only tangentially related to the "construction and deconstruction" of the Christian religion but it does go to the creation story in Genesis which is central to all three of the Abrahamic religions begin.

Vacuum energy has been measured. Proved beyond doubt.

Let's say, as a placeholder pending new information, that vacuum energy has always been, which is another way of saying that reality has never been at absolute zero temperature, ie. has always had a temperature. Not satisfying as a brute fact but, to say that it was created by God - who has always been - just adds an extra unnecessary layer. Simply, the creator God concept kicks the can down the road.

The coolest such related quasi-theist idea IMO was John Hagelin's universal field, which of course is wildly speculative.

I have several such ideas too, and they are also wildly speculative - too much so to qualify as hypotheses.