Does God Philosophise?

P

PsychoticEpisode

It is very dry in here today
Valued Senior Member
I would think God has a philosophy of life, how one should live and behave and so forth but....... Do you think God ponders His own existence? I mean what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. If we can do it then God should be able to, or should a God have no reason to wax philosophic?

If an omniscient God has no need to philosophize then it stands to reason that the acquiring of knowledge lessens the need to philosophize. Know more, philosophize less. Know it all & don't bother, it's a waste of time.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
I would think God has a philosophy of life, how one should live and behave and so forth but....... Do you think God ponders His own existence? I mean what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. If we can do it then God should be able to, or should a God have no reason to wax philosophic?

If an omniscient God has no need to philosophize then it stands to reason that the acquiring of knowledge lessens the need to philosophize. Know more, philosophize less. Know it all & don't bother, it's a waste of time.
Click to expand...

if god knew everything could it even think? ;)
 
scorpius said:
if god knew everything could it even think? ;)
Click to expand...

Every topic needs a subtopic. Good question.

How long should it take God to learn everything? From the moment God knew He was God until the decision to create, the elapsed time should be an infinitely small increment of a second. I don't think a God would need to ponder and think about the whole shebang for aeons upon aeons.

So the more you know means you may not only philosophise less but thinking in general is more or less reduced to mere fractions of time. In fact an omniscient God has no reason to exist longer than a nanosecond or 2. But if it does then any further divine thinking seems redundant and philosophising pointless.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
I would think God has a philosophy of life, how one should live and behave and so forth but....... Do you think God ponders His own existence? I mean what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. If we can do it then God should be able to, or should a God have no reason to wax philosophic?

If an omniscient God has no need to philosophize then it stands to reason that the acquiring of knowledge lessens the need to philosophize. Know more, philosophize less. Know it all & don't bother, it's a waste of time.
Click to expand...
probably a good place to start would be to determine to what degree analyzing our own state of affairs a reliable means of determining god's.

Once we have ironed out the general principle you are applying to make your conclusions, we might then be able to venture in to other topics
 
Meganeura said:
What would the consequences be of either answer?
Click to expand...

Well for one thing, if your god philosophises about its own existence then I think it is safe to conclude that your favorite deity isn't omniscient. Thus philosophy fills a certain void, an emptiness that exists within the deity's mind, a substitute for what god doesn't know. Not much different than humanity's soul searching endeavors today. Would god approach philosophy the same way as we do?

If on the other hand your god doesn't philosophise about its own existence then it doesn't have to because of omniscience. Thus I think it reasonable to conclude that with the accumulation of knowledge there is a lessening in the need to philosophise. IOW's philosophizing about one's existence isn't as important as knowing and you can't know without real proof. Even science isn't immune, Einstein's major works are still theoretical but they can be tested. As I mentioned earlier, philosophy fills a niche in the human psyche, the need to know. Philosophy satisfies us for the moment.

It's just my opinion. Most people know I consider philosophy nothing more than a pleasant mind exercise. We all do it, we all need to know, that's the way we are. The question is: Does god need to or was god a philosopher once?
 
lightgigantic said:
probably a good place to start would be to determine to what degree analyzing our own state of affairs a reliable means of determining god's.

Once we have ironed out the general principle you are applying to make your conclusions, we might then be able to venture in to other topics
Click to expand...

Are not atheists analyzing our own state of affairs?
 
Well, if you believe in God and that the Bible is true, yes. After reading much of the Bible myself, I would ask, when does God not philosophise?

He philosophised (ie reasoned) with many, three of which are Moses, Job, and Abraham.
 
jayleew said:
Well, if you believe in God and that the Bible is true, yes. After reading much of the Bible myself, I would ask, when does God not philosophise?

He philosophised (ie reasoned) with many, three of which are Moses, Job, and Abraham.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that in most religions, God has a philosophy for us. What I'm talking about is whether He contemplates His own existence as our philosophers are bent to do.

In the OT God says he is the Alpha & Omega, beginning and the end. I always wondered if He was referring to us, the universe or Himself.:shrug: With that in mind I find it difficult to envision God as one who ponders His own existence. He sounds more like a an on/off switch than a philosopher.

So if God doesn't philosophise then why do we, made in his image, do so? The metaphorical image does not include thinking, I guess. Philosophy isn't going to matter much when we can be shut down at any moment.
 
lightgigantic said:
that's fine, but when it gets extrapolated to issues of godhood I sometimes wonder whether we even speak the same language ....
Click to expand...

In order to extrapolate, all knowledge must be derived by reasoning. However flawed reasoning may go undetected. Belief contains such reasoning. An atheist is not encumbered by beliefs. Therefore I tend to think an atheistic analysis is closer to the truth.

Maybe I'm wrong but....You may be deliberately avoiding the topic. I see this maneuver as an attempt to change the subject, something you seem to be content to leave alone.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
In order to extrapolate, all knowledge must be derived by reasoning. However flawed reasoning may go undetected. Belief contains such reasoning.
Click to expand...
ok ... but higher than extrapolation is direct familiarity - for instance it may take a team of forensic scientists 6 months to vaguely extrapolate what an eye witness can indicate in great detail

An atheist is not encumbered by beliefs.
Click to expand...
how so?

Therefore I tend to think an atheistic analysis is closer to the truth.
Click to expand...
first of all establish how atheism is beyond metaphysics and how theism has no issues of directly perceiving spiritual nature

Maybe I'm wrong but....You may be deliberately avoiding the topic. I see this maneuver as an attempt to change the subject, something you seem to be content to leave alone.
Click to expand...
Explaining the nature of god's thinking, feeling and willing is totally useless if the other party insists that the conditioned human standard for these things (thinking, feeling, willing) is the absolute yardstick
 
lightgigantic said:
ok ... but higher than extrapolation is direct familiarity - for instance it may take a team of forensic scientists 6 months to vaguely extrapolate what an eye witness can indicate in great detail
Click to expand...

Surely you're aware that memory is not totally reliable. Besides I may not see any forensic evidence that could fit on a microscope slide. Science is detective work that requires reasoning. Maybe religious philosophers could stand to do a little detective work on their own and at least prove to us with some forensics that they've detected direct evidence of God

An atheist is not encumbered by beliefs. ”

how so?
Click to expand...
I don't have the extra baggage containing a god to carry around. My mind is not overburdened by the weight of a divinity. Overindulgence in religious philosophy is producing fatty deposits on your mind. You might want to exercise it properly with a steady dose of reality if you want it to be sharp.

first of all establish how atheism is beyond metaphysics and how theism has no issues of directly perceiving spiritual nature
Click to expand...

In your defense I will say that even metaphysics and all that's associated with it is a product of nature. Nature has endowed us with a mind capable of conjuring up metaphysics. It also enables minds to believe the stars are windows to heaven and that there are canals on Mars.

Explaining the nature of god's thinking, feeling and willing is totally useless if the other party insists that the conditioned human standard for these things (thinking, feeling, willing) is the absolute yardstick
Click to expand...

Here you go again, beyond human comprehension. Beautiful, I was waiting for that.
 
Psychotic episode
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
ok ... but higher than extrapolation is direct familiarity - for instance it may take a team of forensic scientists 6 months to vaguely extrapolate what an eye witness can indicate in great detail
”
Surely you're aware that memory is not totally reliable.
Click to expand...
... yet somehow I can remember how to start the car every day

Besides I may not see any forensic evidence that could fit on a microscope slide. Science is detective work that requires reasoning. Maybe religious philosophers could stand to do a little detective work on their own and at least prove to us with some forensics that they've detected direct evidence of God
Click to expand...
never encountered a normative description in scripture?

“
An atheist is not encumbered by beliefs. ”

how so?
”
I don't have the extra baggage containing a god to carry around. My mind is not overburdened by the weight of a divinity. Overindulgence in religious philosophy is producing fatty deposits on your mind. You might want to exercise it properly with a steady dose of reality if you want it to be sharp.
Click to expand...
or alternatively


I don't have the extra baggage of atheism to carry around. My mind is not overburdened by the weight of a material reductionism. Overindulgence in empiricism is producing fatty deposits on your mind. You might want to exercise it properly with a steady dose of reality if you want it to be sharp.

I just lurv tentative arguments
:)



“
first of all establish how atheism is beyond metaphysics and how theism has no issues of directly perceiving spiritual nature
”
In your defense I will say that even metaphysics and all that's associated with it is a product of nature.
Click to expand...
I guess the next question is whether this is a metaphysical claim
:D
Nature has endowed us with a mind capable of conjuring up metaphysics. It also enables minds to believe the stars are windows to heaven and that there are canals on Mars.
Click to expand...
you forgot to also add that it enables us to believe that everything is materially reducible
“
Explaining the nature of god's thinking, feeling and willing is totally useless if the other party insists that the conditioned human standard for these things (thinking, feeling, willing) is the absolute yardstick
”
Here you go again, beyond human comprehension. Beautiful, I was waiting for that.
Click to expand...
I argued that the topic cannot be approached by a conditioned human standard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top