God: What is your opinion or belief?

[Obvious Leo]

Yes. Although, even using the word "universe" challenges me, because it, too, has certain ideas and limits associated with it.

I don't quite get what you mean here? What sort of limits could you associate with the notion of "everything"?

But there seems to be MORE that is not often seen, nor easily measurable, that passes between and through all of us... and weaves and links people and events in astonishing ways.

Conflating the unknown with the unknowable is hardly the path to the examined life, n'est ce pas?

Obvious Leo wrote:
When most people refer to god or gods they refer to beings which exist external to the physical universe and are assumed responsible for events which occur within it.


I think it's the easiest explanation for human beings... even though it makes no sense

I completely disagree with this. Evolutionary theory is perfectly sufficient to the task of explaining the existence of human beings and as far as I'm concerned reaching for the invisible hand of the supernatural is a cop-out and the final refuge of an intellectual coward.

Obvious Leo wrote:
If we don't accept that it is then we have no need of philosophy or science because we have immediately defined reality as unknowable.


Well, I suppose I am guilty of this in the sense that I think we're making all of this up somehow..

On this point we are in complete agreement. The story of our universe is our own story alone. No other species in the universe will ever model reality in the same way that we have chosen to do it on this day in 2015. However ours is not a very certain story anyway, is it? It's an ever-bubbling dynamic shape-shifting story which moulds itself to the scientific, philosophical and cultural zeitgeist of the day.

If you were looking for Absolute Truth, Lacewing, you'd be in a convent and not in a philosophy forum.

[Obvious Leo]

Is your new "Thinking Man's God" a conscious entity?

Seriously? After all what was said you have the audacity to ask whether God is some kind of superman? Lacewing is right: "there is no god standing separately with expectations, demands, nor being displeased."

Either: (A) You rapturously gets off on wasting other people's energy on questions you are incapable of intelligently discussing or investigating yourself; or (B), you are a lonely and desperate swamp creature that will slobber happily over anyone's interaction with you.

Does this mean you're not proposing to answer my question?

[The Inglorious One]

For me, the concept of "from the beginning to the end of time" sounds manmade.

It is, but it's analogical, nor univocal.

The rest of the description is interesting. Although I still have a sense that the idea of "god" is being given a role and actions.

Is the "sense" grounded in residual preconceptions or in the words themselves? Because I don't see anything in the words themselves that suggest anything other than God being the Ground of all things that have being.

The last part makes the most sense to me: "God is the condition...". We wouldn't worship a "condition" would we? We might appreciate it... we might try to utilize it well... but we wouldn't personify it.

That depends on how we relate to the said "condition," doesn't it? And our sense of how "It" relates to us. I mean, there's no right or wrong answer here.

The "he" blows that idea for me.

Ah, that answers my question about the problem with residual preconceptions. We have to allow for the limitations of language: what do we say when we run out of words?

But in general, it seems to me, that we simply cannot truthfully reduce such unknowable vastness and potential down to human characteristics, without completely distorting the entire idea and turning it into something else. And the fact that we even try to seems grossly foolish and deceptive. I support other people's experience to make up whatever they want, and whatever gives them peace or helps them to live a valuable life. For myself, however, any god concept that involves separateness or supremacy is false.

Absolutely, which is why I think the quote from the movie Lucy is useful here. In case you haven't seen it, here it is:

“Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. 'One' is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. 'One plus one equals two.' That's all we've learned. But one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy

[Lacewing]

Yes. Although, even using the word "universe" challenges me, because it, too, has certain ideas and limits associated with it.

I don't quite get what you mean here? What sort of limits could you associate with the notion of "everything"?

I'm thinking that defining the universe as "everything that exists" only applies to a given moment and the human concept of what it means to "exist".

But there seems to be MORE that is not often seen, nor easily measurable, that passes between and through all of us... and weaves and links people and events in astonishing ways.

Conflating the unknown with the unknowable is hardly the path to the examined life, n'est ce pas?

But wait! What is unknown right now, may not be unknown from a different vantage point, which could very likely be part of our evolutionary expansion... no??

[Obvious Leo wrote:
When most people refer to god or gods they refer to beings which exist external to the physical universe and are assumed responsible for events which occur within it.]

I think it's the easiest explanation for human beings... even though it makes no sense

I completely disagree with this. Evolutionary theory is perfectly sufficient to the task of explaining the existence of human beings and as far as I'm concerned reaching for the invisible hand of the supernatural is a cop-out and the final refuge of an intellectual coward.

Well, I do agree with you. I was just thinking that it's "easier" in comparison to acquiring more knowledge/awareness of one's responsibility in being part of a natural and continually-changing system. So, primitive cultures (which we apparently still are) could slap the god label on all kinds of unexplained events... and direct people in a systematic, orderly way... and offer some sort of comfort through the belief of somebody big at the helm.

The story of our universe is our own story alone. No other species in the universe will ever model reality in the same way that we have chosen to do it on this day in 2015. However ours is not a very certain story anyway, is it? It's an ever-bubbling dynamic shape-shifting story which moulds itself to the scientific, philosophical and cultural zeitgeist of the day.

Oh yeh, baby... say some more!

If you were looking for Absolute Truth, Lacewing, you'd be in a convent and not in a philosophy forum.

Yep. It doesn't make sense to me that there is an absolute truth. And I'm thrilled by that.

[Lacewing]

I still have a sense that the idea of "god" is being given a role and actions.

Is the "sense" grounded in residual preconceptions or in the words themselves? Because I don't see anything in the words themselves that suggest anything other than God being the Ground of all things that have being.

Oh! I've just re-read it and see it differently now. Thanks. Yes, I like the "grounding of existence" concept. I'm still very skeptical that most theists/people can (at this point in time) embrace this, though, without personifying or warping it. That's why I prefer to remove the "god" label completely... and say "energy".

The "he" blows that idea for me.

Ah, that answers my question about the problem with residual preconceptions. We have to allow for the limitations of language: what do we say when we run out of words?

Well, I see NO reason whatsoever to use the word "he". Why would this infinite whatever have a human gender? That's a personification and it makes no sense. It was clearly devised by human men. So it warps any concept, right out of the gate.

We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy

Hee hee hee! Love this. I wish we could ALWAYS remember this! We might have more fun.

[Obvious Leo]

Yep. It doesn't make sense to me that there is an absolute truth. And I'm thrilled by that.

I agree completely. The indigenous Australian aborigines had a very sophisticated philosophy known as the Dreamtime, which focused on visual, symbolic and generally non-representational art as well as dance and the oral tradition. To the first Australians human beings were story-tellers who had to find the meaning of their own existence in the stories that they told. These stories also had to tell them how to live in a harsh and unforgiving landscape and the fact that they did so successfully for almost 60,000 years meant that these were very very good stories. These were not childish stories of gods to worship as we would understand the practice and there was certainly no myth of immortality. The stories were all about the ever-changing tides of natural events which governed their daily lives and how they should adapt to them in order to survive. Nature was not to be tamed but to be comprehended, so even in our modern era we have much to learn from these primitive folk. However the most profound thing that we can learn from these remarkable people lies in the way they defined the meaning of life itself. To the Australian aborigine the meaning of life could only be defined in terms of the journey and never in terms of the destination. The simple beauty and nuance of this perspective never fails to move me.

When the Europeans invaded this continent they judged these people as sub-human and systematically set about the task of slaughtering nearly all of them. They did this in god's name.

[The Inglorious One]

Well, I see NO reason whatsoever to use the word "he". Why would this infinite whatever have a human gender? That's a personification and it makes no sense. It was clearly devised by human men. So it warps any concept, right out of the gate.

Granted, but "she" and "it" does, too. Any suggestions?

[Lacewing]

The stories were all about the ever-changing tides of natural events which governed their daily lives and how they should adapt to them in order to survive. Nature was not to be tamed but to be comprehended...

Beautiful! May humankind cycle back around to such/similar wisdom again! And may all of the ignorance and madness that WE and our more recent ancestors have sustained and lived through, serve as an extraordinarily useful and unforgettable warning to those who come after. That would help make more sense of it all... and I would gladly volunteer for such duty, had I known.

[The Inglorious One]

It doesn't make sense to me that there is an absolute truth. And I'm thrilled by that.

Do not virtually all monotheists agree the God, and by extension Absolute Truth, is beyond our ability to fully comprehend? They will, and do, argue that there is an Absolute Reality, but that's not the same as arguing there is an absolute truth.

[Lacewing]

Well, I see NO reason whatsoever to use the word "he". Why would this infinite whatever have a human gender? That's a personification and it makes no sense. It was clearly devised by human men. So it warps any concept, right out of the gate.

Granted, but "she" and "it" does, too. Any suggestions?

How about "the collective energy that connects and pulses throughout all?" Too long?

[The Inglorious One]

Well, I see NO reason whatsoever to use the word "he". Why would this infinite whatever have a human gender? That's a personification and it makes no sense. It was clearly devised by human men. So it warps any concept, right out of the gate.

Granted, but "she" and "it" does, too. Any suggestions?

How about "the collective energy that connects and pulses throughout all?" Too long?

Too long and too limiting; i.e., too much like saying "it." It is no less misleading than referring to God as a person in an anthropomorphic sense.

[Lacewing]

It doesn't make sense to me that there is an absolute truth. And I'm thrilled by that.

Do not virtually all monotheists agree the God, and by extension Absolute Truth, is beyond our ability to fully comprehend? They will, and do, argue that there is an Absolute Reality, but that's not the same as arguing there is an absolute truth.

They may "SAY" in one breath that such is beyond our ability to fully comprehend RIGHT BEFORE they THEN declare what all of it is, what it means, how it applies, and what will happen to those who don't believe the same, etc. Inconsistency and discrepancy between words and deeds is not a popular topic or exploration in matters of one's god. And, yes, I have seen theists argue about absolute truth(s) -- not only as if they themselves could know it, but as if they UNIQUELY know it.

I do not expect you to explain such madness... but yes, it does exist continually and broadly, and surely you can see that when you're not too focused on applying soothing balm over all the scabs.

How about "the collective energy that connects and pulses throughout all?" Too long?

Too long and too limiting; i.e., too much like saying "it." It is no less misleading than referring to God as a person in an anthropomorphic sense.

Well, I was describing the "infinite whatever"... not a god... and the concept of "it" is certainly better than "he". "He" is just ridiculous.

I'm guessing that there would be a significant beneficial difference in our world if Christianity had used the term "it"!!!

[The Inglorious One]

They may "SAY" in one breath that such is beyond our ability to fully comprehend RIGHT BEFORE they THEN declare what all of it is, what it means, how it applies, and what will happen to those who don't believe the same, etc. Inconsistency and discrepancy between words and deeds is not a popular topic or exploration in matters of one's god. And, yes, I have seen theists argue about absolute truth(s) -- not only as if they themselves could know it, but as if they UNIQUELY know it.

I do not expect you to explain such madness... but yes, it does exist continually and broadly, and surely you can see that when you're not too focused on applying soothing balm over all the scabs.

Welcome to the human race. But it does'take religion for people to do bad things.

Well, I was describing the "infinite whatever"... not a god... and the concept of "it" is certainly better than "he". "He" is just ridiculous.

I'm guessing that there would be a significant beneficial difference in our world if Christianity had used the term "it"!!!

Think carefully: do you think it wise to request that Christians use a term that contradicts what is to them an experiential reality, God's personhood?

[Lacewing]

Well, I was describing the "infinite whatever"... not a god... and the concept of "it" is certainly better than "he". "He" is just ridiculous.

I'm guessing that there would be a significant beneficial difference in our world if Christianity had used the term "it"!!!

Think carefully: do you think it wise to request that Christians use a term that contradicts what is to them an experiential reality, God's personhood?

I'm not requesting that Christians do anything. I was simply pondering that we'd have a whole different experience if humans had not personified a concept of a god in their own image.

[The Inglorious One]

I'm not requesting that Christians do anything. I was simply pondering that we'd have a whole different experience if humans had not personified a concept of a god in their own image.

IMO, such pondering is rather vacuous for four reasons. First, of course, is that it does not deal with the way things are in the real world. Second, it denies the experiential claims of theism, which spans all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. (A brazen denial, to say the least.) Third, to deny the personhood of God leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism -- neither of which correspond with the experiential claims. Fourth, it assumes belief precedes experience.