Complex views of God

[chimpkin]

Yazata said:

That's how I look at the epistemological side of the religious quest as well. It isn't really a search for an authoritative professor, preacher, prophet, scripture or guru who is in a position to reveal the mysteries to us. It's more like the whole human race is a giant existential research group, composed of people whose human condition puts them on the same epistemological plane, that's found itself in this weird... reality... thing, and is trying to figure out what might explain it and what meaning it might possibly hold for us in our lives.

Excellently put. That's one reason why I have a problem with thinking one has to have a teacher.

 

[gmilam]

Why have you called this manifestation ''God''?

jan.

Why do you NOT call it God? :shrug:

 

[Yazata]

And also that issues of translations, intepretations and other text-critical problems do not enter the scene for you.That is a big trust. Unless, of course, you are enlightened and such.

It is because you are enlightened in philosophy why you see these as an obstacle.
You, somehow or other, think yourself separate, a pure observer, and until such time you make a decision, you are un-affected by what you read.

That is a rather naive and inaccurate rendition of the philosopher's/academic's (" ") situation.
Perhaps Yazata and some others might agree with it, but I don't.

Oww!

I don't think that we should just assume that religious divinities saying things in the pages of what we are told are "revealed" religious scriptures necessarily means that an actual divinity truly said anything. Not only are there the translation, interpretation and text-critical problems that Signal alluded to, there's the more fundamental question of the original source of the ideas expressed in the text.

I'm inclined to think that the ideas in all of the world's religious scriptures originated with human beings, not with supernatural deities.

That doesn't mean that the words aren't going to have any effect on readers. Millions of people who believe in the supernatural origin of the words are profoundly influenced.

It doesn't even mean that the words are going to be without effect on readers who don't believe that the text literally records a God speaking. Some of Jesus' parables are very striking and profound, and that's still true even if Jesus wasn't actually the earthly incarnation of the Jewish God.

We are often deeply influenced by poetry, literary fiction and philosophy, after all. To say nothing of moral exhortations and political ideologies.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why do you NOT call it God? :shrug:

Good question.
Because God is defined as a Supreme Being, and as the creator of the universe.
I find it hard to believe that the universe created itself, or that the universe possesses intelligence and consciousness.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

I'm inclined to think that the ideas in all of the world's religious scriptures originated with human beings, not with supernatural deities.

What are your reasons?

That doesn't mean that the words aren't going to have any effect on readers. Millions of people who believe in the supernatural origin of the words are profoundly influenced.

Don't get too comfy in your analysis, you've yet to give a reason why
you think the scriptures originate with man and not God.

It doesn't even mean that the words are going to be without effect on readers who don't believe that the text literally records a God speaking.

What is the point of the texts if they are not true?
How can anyone benefit from a pack of lies?

Some of Jesus' parables are very striking and profound, and that's still true even if Jesus wasn't actually the earthly incarnation of the Jewish God.

I didn't know he was an incarnation of a ''Jewish God''.
But again if his teaching was based on ''his'' father ''Yahweh'', and the prophets of the old testament, how can anything he said be striking and profound. It's all lies, isn't it?

We are often deeply influenced by poetry, literary fiction and philosophy, after all. To say nothing of moral exhortations and political ideologies.

It's not the same thing Yaz.
The whole point of religion is to train the mind to take care of the spiritual soul, by controlling the senses. It's not about pretty bunny-rabbits, and lambs bleating in winter.


jan.

 

[Rav]

Actually, it isn't;

Pantheism literally means "All God". That is, the entire universe and every single thing in it. Galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atoms, quantum mechanics, vacuum energy... Plants, animals, human beings, consciousness... Everything. It's all God.

Your attempts to belittle the God of pantheism are irrelevant. Your desire to put God outside of and/or beyond an already infinite, eternal and perfect structure is perplexing. What is your justification for this?

 

[gmilam]

Good question.
Because God is defined as a Supreme Being, and as the creator of the universe.

According to some

I find it hard to believe that the universe created itself, or that the universe possesses intelligence and consciousness.

Don't know that the universe was created - it just is.

As to the intelligence and consciousness... I am a very small part of the universe and I am intelligent and conscious.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Pantheism literally means "All God". That is, the entire universe and every single thing in it. Galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atoms, quantum mechanics, vacuum energy... Plants, animals, human beings, consciousness... Everything. It's all God.

Pan-theos literally translates All-God, but it doesn't mean everything is God.
It looked at the universe in the sense of theism, that's all.
The idea of pantheism was introduced by an Irish man in the 1700's, who took
the nutjob step of claiming everything was God. No doubt a pissed off Catholic.

Your attempts to belittle the God of pantheism are irrelevant.

I don't need to belittle the God of pantheism because such a being exist only
as a concept. And if that rocks your boat, then go for it.

Your desire to put God outside of and/or beyond an already infinite, eternal and perfect structure is perplexing. What is your justification for this?

I haven't expressed any desires.
You have.
I'm sticking to ancient scriptures which all attest to one character we refer to as God.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

According to some


Don't know that the universe was created - it just is.

As to the intelligence and consciousness... I am a very small part of the universe and I am intelligent and conscious.

There is only one definition of God.
There can only be one definition of God.
When you say according to some, you are merely
talking of concepts of the one definition of God.


You have intelligence and consciousness because God has intelligence
and consciousnes, and you are part and parcel of God (soul)
Your physical body is made up of the stuff of the universe, much like a car,
or a building. None of them contain intellegence or consciousness. It only seems so when inhabited by the soul.

All this information is contained within all scriptures.


jan.

 

[Rav]

Pan-theos literally translates All-God, but it doesn't mean everything is God.
It looked at the universe in the sense of theism, that's all.
The idea of pantheism was introduced by an Irish man in the 1700's, who took
the nutjob step of claiming everything was God. No doubt a pissed off Catholic.

John Toland only coined the phrase. Pantheistic ideas themselves have cropped up in many places throughout history, and can be traced back all the way to the Upanishads.

I don't need to belittle the God of pantheism because such a being exist only
as a concept.

Now you've put yourself in the unfortunate position of having to demonstrate that a creator God isn't just a concept. This should be good.

I'm sticking to [a particular subset of] ancient scriptures

Fixed.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

John Toland only coined the phrase. Pantheistic ideas themselves have cropped up in many places throughout history, and can be traced back all the way to the Upanishads.

I'd be interested in some examples.

Now you've put yourself in the unfortunate position of having to demonstrate that a creator God isn't just a concept. This should be good.

I thought you would have seen my response to gmilam.

''There is only one definition of God.
There can only be one definition of God.
When you say according to some, you are merely
talking of concepts of the one definition of God.''

Bear in mind the ontological argument.

Fixed.

Again, bear in mind the OA.

jan.

 

[chimpkin]

Jan Ardena said:
There is only one definition of God.
There can only be one definition of God.

There can be only one?

Seriously???


Are you really going to wear those theological chauvinist pants in public?

It makes your butt look really big and arrogant.

 

[Rav]

I'd be interested in some examples.

See the Wikipedia article, specifically the history section (which you seem to have only skimmed the first paragraph of). Also, see this google search.

I thought you would have seen my response to gmilam.

''There is only one definition of God.
There can only be one definition of God.
When you say according to some, you are merely
talking of concepts of the one definition of God.''

I ignored it because it's bullshit.

Bear in mind the ontological argument.

Which is essentially the same as "The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God". It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as demonstrated here. In short, human beings are actually incapable of truly conceiving of the greatest possible being, so the argument falls flat on it's face.

 

[Big Chiller]

Which is essentially the same as "The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God". It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as demonstrated here. In short, human beings are actually incapable of truly conceiving of the greatest possible being, so the argument falls flat on it's face.

Humans are completely incapable of truly conceiving the greatest possible being but clearly we can conceptualize of this being who said we should ever have to go beyond that afterall we are completely incapable of going beyond that.

 

[Rav]

Humans are completely incapable of truly conceiving the greatest possible being but clearly we can conceptualize of this being

Sure, we can conceptualize almost anything. For example, I can conceive of a God who is so perfect and complete that nothing additional would need to be brought into existence.

 

[Big Chiller]

Sure, we can conceptualize almost anything...

Why 'almost' anything it seems we can conceptualize of anything that can exist.

 

[Rav]

Why 'almost' anything it seems we can conceptualize of anything that can exist.

I use the word "almost" (and words like it) quite a lot since I like to leave room for the possibility that there are situations that we may not have conceived of yet where what seems like an obvious notion may not hold. For example, we can not conceptualize that which we don't know about.

 

[Big Chiller]

I use the word "almost" (and words like it) quite a lot since I like to leave room for the possibility that there are situations that we may not have conceived of yet where what seems like an obvious notion may not hold. For example, we can not conceptualize that which we don't know about.

Let me make it clear that what I'm talking about is getting a general idea of something and not about truly conceiving of something or truly understanding something. I.e. I'm not talking of understanding which requires specified knowledge.

BTW how can you concieve of perfect God if you can't conceive of that which you don't know.

 

[Rav]

Let me make it clear that what I'm talking about is getting a general idea of something and not about truly conceiving of something or truly understanding something. I.e. I'm not talking of understanding which requires specified knowledge.

Fair enough. So how does the ontological argument hold if we are actually incapable of properly conceiving of a creator god?

 

[Big Chiller]

Fair enough. So how does the ontological argument hold if we are actually incapable of properly conceiving of a creator god?

OA requires us to truly conceive of creator God? It is ontology right not empiricism.