Constructing a God Type Table

[Greta]

As we all know, God is posited to be all manner of things by different people - anywhere from a Santa-esque character that rewards the good and punishes the naughty, to "everything", to being simply a myth.

It seems to me that, for clarity's and brevity's sake, philosophers need to construct a table listing and consistently labelling all the different versions of The Monotheistic Deity. Thus, with this system one might easily clear up and a misunderstand like so: "No no no, I'm referring to God #37, not Gods # 1, 2 or 6". See how easy and clear it would be if we could all speak the same language?

After all, pantheists will rightfully feel insulted if they are spoken to as if they were young Earth creationists, and no doubt vice versa.

I only know a small number of "kinds of God":

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"

Contributions?

[Greta]

No replies? Do we prefer the uncertainty of not knowing which god any given person is referring to and duking it out?

[Walker]

I simply must tell you, the sheer beauty of this passage still en-trances. Do you observe the truth that he discovered in the process of the speaking devoid of petty intent ... or perhaps better phrased, from an altitude with a more distant horizon?

“Man has through the ages been seeking something beyond himself, beyond material welfare – something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state – something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by human corruption.

“Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning, at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolts, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything beyond it?

“And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith – faith in a savior or an ideal – and faith invariably breeds violence.”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti

[seeds]

No replies? Do we prefer the uncertainty of not knowing which god any given person is referring to and duking it out?

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.
_______

[Dubious]

As we all know, God is posited to be all manner of things by different people - anywhere from a Santa-esque character that rewards the good and punishes the naughty, to "everything", to being simply a myth.

It seems to me that, for clarity's and brevity's sake, philosophers need to construct a table listing and consistently labelling all the different versions of The Monotheistic Deity. Thus, with this system one might easily clear up and a misunderstand like so: "No no no, I'm referring to God #37, not Gods # 1, 2 or 6". See how easy and clear it would be if we could all speak the same language?

After all, pantheists will rightfully feel insulted if they are spoken to as if they were young Earth creationists, and no doubt vice versa.

I only know a small number of "kinds of God":

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"

Contributions?

It doesn't matter how many more can be added to the list; I think you covered most of it, certainly the ones which are mostly discussed. All of it however remains our conception which includes the category of no god at all. No matter how long the list it defaults purely to what humans have imagined and provided. The wars of religion and beliefs are simply crusades between concepts with never anything more fundamental to support them than the wish to monopolize through creeds and credos custom-made versions of divinity which are manifestly always on the side of the believer.

It's amazing how many people got burned alive because they were on the wrong side of a variable abstraction.

Just as we cannot fathom a state of non-existence as in death, it is completely beyond us - perhaps in some degree even to atheists - that the universe has no brain.

[Greta]

No replies? Do we prefer the uncertainty of not knowing which god any given person is referring to and duking it out?

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.

Groovy rhetoric that sounds as if it could be right - but is untrue in every sense. So #7 is rejected on the basis of complete irrelevance along with obviously patently false equivalence, with a measure of dishonest misrepresentation of others' positions added.

If people are taking about "God" we need to know which "God" we are speaking about. This is about achieving clarity, not trying to muddy the waters further with political games.

[Greta]

All of it however remains our conception which includes the category of no god at all.

Again, "no God" is not valid either.

Think about it. Someone mentions "God". Which god? One thing you can be sure is that the answer won't be "no god".

I'm not sure how complete the list is. For instance, I think there could be a few different types of anthropomorphic gods although most appear to be "the old man in the sky" - a white bearded homophobic misogynist god who created the universe in six days.

[Dubious]

All of it however remains our conception which includes the category of no god at all.

Again, "no God" is not valid either.

Think about it. Someone mentions "God". Which god? One thing you can be sure is that the answer won't be "no god".

I should have expressed myself better. If you run a gamut of gods then "no god which can be categorized" seems to me not unlike your #6 inclusion "the ground of being" which can be devolve to an abstract entity or force which has exceedingly little to do with our historic or philosophical conceptions of god.

[Impenitent]

type table? didn't it say they were on they were stone tablets?

-Imp

[Dubious]

Instead of categories that can be added to it's more important in debate to distinguish between a theistic incorporation of god or a philosophical one. The two don't have much in common as I see it and can easily exclude each other in any discussion.

[Greta]

Imp, loquacious as always. We moved on from stone tablets, to clipboards. Then we moved from clipboards back to tablets, albeit with touch screens. Funny old world.

I should have expressed myself better. If you run a gamut of gods then "no god which can be categorized" seems to me not unlike your #6 inclusion "the ground of being" which can be devolve to an abstract entity or force which has exceedingly little to do with our historic or philosophical conceptions of god.

Yes, that god of the gaps does appear to be oddly logical, along with Spinoza's naturalism. However, people will insist on using the moniker of a Jewish war deity out of custom and tradition. It just makes things messy, thus I want categories.

Maybe theists here could nominate which God is closest to theirs so we know where they stand?

I am personally atheist towards #1 and agnostic towards the rest in a general sense, most favouring #4-6, while often disagreeing with the details of the conceptions claimed by proponents of all models, especially the certainty with which the claims are made.

I think, as you noted, there is some disagreement as to whether #4-6 qualify as the same thing as the others - or whether there is a sense in which they are all the same but using different modelling and metaphors.

[Walker]

type table? didn't it say they were on they were stone tablets?

-Imp

Maybe the word setting after type was the intended title typing, seeing as how type-setting, or as some say the type-casting of other folks and their cultures, was probably popular before Gutenberg, seeing as how it's the details and not the folks that change so much.

[Dontaskme]

I only know a small number of "kinds of God":

Before you can start to confidently and with authority talk about knowledge known, as the assumption is made in the OP ...where the assumption is asserted as shown here >(I only know a small number of "kinds of God")

You first have to know who is this ''I'' that knows the knowledge asserted? ..who is the knower? and where does the knower come from?

.

[Dalek Prime]

As we all know, God is posited to be all manner of things by different people - anywhere from a Santa-esque character that rewards the good and punishes the naughty, to "everything", to being simply a myth.

It seems to me that, for clarity's and brevity's sake, philosophers need to construct a table listing and consistently labelling all the different versions of The Monotheistic Deity. Thus, with this system one might easily clear up and a misunderstand like so: "No no no, I'm referring to God #37, not Gods # 1, 2 or 6". See how easy and clear it would be if we could all speak the same language?

After all, pantheists will rightfully feel insulted if they are spoken to as if they were young Earth creationists, and no doubt vice versa.

I only know a small number of "kinds of God":

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"

Contributions?

7. A(n) (un)real fucktard.

Heh. Now you've got me playing with titles

[Dubious]

I think, as you noted, there is some disagreement as to whether #4-6 qualify as the same thing as the others - or whether there is a sense in which they are all the same but using different modelling and metaphors.

In the lovely old medieval times and slightly beyond, the question fought for was whose god is real which NOW morphs into is god real?

The future is likely to claim, as many already do now, that god is only a philosophical entity, the so-called Ground of Being which is simply a placeholder for mysteries never to be revealed except in theory. All our "theories" never described GOD to begin with only the psychology of humans who require certainty as an alternative to what can never be known or identified. An atheist is mostly someone who feels relatively comfortable not knowing, aware enough that god can only be rendered as symbolizations in philosophy.

If this be anathema to the religious mind and the confirmation craved for defaults to a non sequitur, our abilities to imagine will create the objects of worship in an empty niche of not knowing; connotations accepted as denotations in which the metaphoric and fictional becomes actual.

The "real" paradigm is one which renders god as an inside-out projection.