What is the concept of God philosophically?

[Ben JS]

I was always told 'God' loves you.
That's what I was raised to believe.
There's a supernatural conscious being
that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent & omniscient.

That this supernatural being,
has demands of you.
There's a list.
That they have a plan for you,
which they've designed,
and you are wrong if you disobey this plan.

That's the question I often ask people who I think are being sly with their definition of 'God' -
"Does God love you?"

I don't think existence loves us.
I've seen the suffering of people, and non-human animals.
I know what love is, and I don't think this is it.

If there is a being that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent,
then I think they would a created something different than this.
If they're omniscient, then I think their claim we have free will is a contradiction.

But again, people can define 'God' to mean anything, right?
When I say I don't believe in 'God',
what I'm primarily saying is I don't believe existence loves us.
I don't think existence has our back.

Things within existence can love,
but components are not the totality.

I've seen no evidence or reason to believe in the supernatural.
The natural world is more than enough for a worthy existence.

I feel 'God' is such a loaded term,
that any conversation could better with more specific language to define referred phenomena.
That people hang on to this term due to an agenda,
and try to shoehorn it in where it need not be.

But admittedly, I was raised in the West.
There's plenty of conceptions of 'God' or 'gods',
I have a bitter taste in my mouth due to personal experience.

-

But I'm not here to rail on religion,
just express my feelings.

I suppose a big thing is this -
I don't believe we need to invoke the supernatural.. ever.
I think we can function perfectly fine, working with and from the natural world.

There is not one situation, besides speaking about the supernatural,
that I think the term 'god' offers any utility.

[This isn't an invitation for argument or anything,
y'all fine to think I'm an idiot and disagree.
I'm sincerely speaking to the question.]

[Janoah]

It is Impossible for God to be Real;

Everything that happens happens according to the law of nature.
The philosophical concept of God is the First Cause, the Substantial Form.
The Substantial Form is the One law of nature.
What's unreal about this?

The typical is God is ... omnipotent,

This is philosophically incorrect, and Aristotle and Maimonides prove and explain this.
God "can do nothing" because He is only actual; potentiality is not inherent in Him.



***This can be proven by physically examining it and it need be verified and confirmed by science***

Science proves based on the law of nature.
Therefore, you believe in the reality of the law of nature.
God is the One law of nature, therefore, you have no reason to doubt the reality of God.


***Why you want God to be 'real' is purely due to psychological, emotional drives and pseudo-rationality.***

But you want the law of nature to be real, otherwise science will not prove anything, only old wives' tales will remain.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Everything that happens happens according to the law of nature.
The philosophical concept of God is the First Cause, the Substantial Form.
The Substantial Form is the One law of nature.
What's unreal about this?

The typical is God is ... omnipotent,

This is philosophically incorrect, and Aristotle and Maimonides prove and explain this.
God "can do nothing" because He is only actual; potentiality is not inherent in Him.

***This can be proven by physically examining it and it need be verified and confirmed by science***

Science proves based on the law of nature.
Therefore, you believe in the reality of the law of nature.
God is the One law of nature, therefore, you have no reason to doubt the reality of God.

***Why you want God to be 'real' is purely due to psychological, emotional drives and pseudo-rationality.***

But you want the law of nature to be real, otherwise science will not prove anything, only old wives' tales will remain.

You got it wrong with Science.

Science never claimed there are real laws of nature out there that are absolutely independent of science.

Science can only assert there are real laws of nature because they are scientifically-real as conditioned by the scientific framework and system [FS].

Humans have had and has experiences.
There are patterns to these experiences.
Science process and justified these patterns via the scientific framework as scientific laws of nature, not laws of nature in themselves which are absolutely independent of human beings.
So science can 'prove' anything of experience and possible experience as real but only contingent upon the scientific method, framework and system.
No one can assert confidently 'water is H20' except by the science-chemistry-FS. The science-biology FS [even though it is a science] cannot assert that with confidence [qualified]

What has been deemed as laws of nature scientifically had been changed by human-based science itself, there are no absolutely laws of nature without the interaction of human-based science.

No authentic scientist[s] will claim there are absolute laws of nature that are 100% certain.
What are laws of nature from science are always open-ended as contingent upon humans.

......
Aristotle did not argue for God; Aquinas relying on Aristotle and Maimonides did argue for God.
But their argument are pseudo-rational, baseless and groundless, thus illusory.

Perfection is merely an idea, thought, ideal and pseudo-rational.
Show me where in reality is something that is absolutely perfect and real as claim for a God?

[Pistolero]

Almost all the topics here mention God.
But to talk about something, you should have an idea about it, unless you are a parrot.
So, what is your definition of God?
This applies to both theists and atheists.
There is a parable, an atheist came to the Rabbi and said to him,
- Rabbi, I don't believe in God.
And the Rabbi answers him,
- I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

God, in the Abrahamic tradition = a representation of the idea man. An ideal so supernatural no mortal man can ever attain it.
That's the point.
Shame and guilt, for being unable to attain the ideal, i.e., god, producing a malleable, controllable, submissive psychology.
God, is also an abstraction of purified consciousness being minus a sinful evil corporeal body - purified ideal.

God is also a representation of a collective.
All those who believe and worship a god, are represented by this abstraction.
So, those who worship the Jewish god, are really worshiping the Jews, who claim to be the 'light upon the world' or the source of Noahide ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Almost all the topics here mention God.
But to talk about something, you should have an idea about it, unless you are a parrot.
So, what is your definition of God?
This applies to both theists and atheists.
There is a parable, an atheist came to the Rabbi and said to him,
- Rabbi, I don't believe in God.
And the Rabbi answers him,
- I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

God, in the Abrahamic tradition = a representation of the idea man. An ideal so supernatural no mortal man can ever attain it.
That's the point.
Shame and guilt, for being unable to attain the ideal, i.e., god, producing a malleable, controllable, submissive psychology.
God, is also an abstraction of purified consciousness being minus a sinful evil corporeal body - purified ideal.

..

That is my point as above where I asked:

"Perfection is merely an idea, thought, ideal and pseudo-rational.
Show me where in reality is something that is absolutely perfect and real as claim for a God?"

God is illusory but nevertheless a very critical and very necessary useful fiction within the psychological state of the majority at present [not necessary the future], necessary to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis and the leaked and exuding angsts.

[Pistolero]

That is my point as above where I asked:

"Perfection is merely an idea, thought, ideal and pseudo-rational.
Show me where in reality is something that is absolutely perfect and real as claim for a God?"

God is illusory but nevertheless a very critical and very necessary useful fiction within the psychological state of the majority at present [not necessary the future], necessary to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis and the leaked and exuding angsts.

I never denied the utility of lies.
In American pragmatism what is true is what works, and what works is often lies.....especially when dealing with humans who need lies to cope with the truth of their existence.

But philosophy is not about what is useful.....it is about what is true.
Wisdom is evaluating how much and what truth is useful.
To determine that...we must first determine what is most probably true, and what is not.
Few have the psychological constitution to be real philosophers. Many philosophers of merit lived lives of suffering and tragedy, because even they could not endure the truth without being broken by it.

Existence does not care about human.
It is both a necessary part of life's emergence and part of its suffering and demise.
Kronos eats his own children.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is my point as above where I asked:

"Perfection is merely an idea, thought, ideal and pseudo-rational.
Show me where in reality is something that is absolutely perfect and real as claim for a God?"

God is illusory but nevertheless a very critical and very necessary useful fiction within the psychological state of the majority at present [not necessary the future], necessary to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis and the leaked and exuding angsts.

I never denied the utility of lies.
In American pragmatism what is true is what works, and what works is often lies.....especially when dealing with humans who need lies to cope with the truth of their existence.

But philosophy is not about what is useful.....it is about what is true.
Wisdom is evaluating how much and what truth is useful.
To determine that...we must first determine what is most probably true, and what is not.
Few have the psychological constitution to be real philosophers. Many philosophers of merit lived lives of suffering and tragedy, because even they could not endure the truth without being broken by it.

Existence does not care about human.
It is both a necessary part of life's emergence and part of its suffering and demise.
Kronos eats his own children.

Whatever is real, a fact, knowledge and truth is always conditioned upon a human-based framework and system [FS], the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity, say indexed at 100/100.
There is no standalone truth-by-itself [no truth is an island].
A lie [falsehood] is therefore that which is not in compliant with a specific FS.
For example the claim 'God exists' is true within the theistic FS [credibility 5/100 relatively] but it is a lie within the scientific FS which has higher credibility and objectivity.

Even within the scientific FS, all scientific truths and facts are at best polished conjectures [Popper] i.e. there are no absolute truths nor facts.

So, what works is not necessary a 'lie' per se but a lie or conjecture of certain degrees which has no relation to whether it works or not.
What works is a not a question of truth, but must be contrasted with whether it is moral or not within a morality-proper FS.
That is a knife is true as verified by science, but its use is immoral if used to kill humans and acceptable if it is not immoral.

[Pistolero]

Whatever is real, a fact, knowledge and truth is always conditioned upon a human-based framework and system [FS], the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity, say indexed at 100/100.

Reality is independent from all subjective interpretations of it.
Reality, refers to world, or cosmos, or existence....
Existence is dynamic, so all subjective interpretations can only be approximations - superior or inferior.

Actions and their consequences determine which subjective interpretation was more accurate.
A man's expectations juxtaposed with the actual consequences of his theoretical perspectives.

There is no standalone truth-by-itself [no truth is an island].

"Truth" is another way of saying, perspective.
All perspectives are relative to a shared world.

A lie [falsehood] is therefore that which is not in compliant with a specific FS.
For example the claim 'God exists' is true within the theistic FS [credibility 5/100 relatively] but it is a lie within the scientific FS which has higher credibility and objectivity.

No, a lie is a truth that is intentionally or unintentionally manipulating the truth

Even within the scientific FS, all scientific truths and facts are at best polished conjectures [Popper] i.e. there are no absolute truths nor facts.

Nobody speak of absolutes.
If you've read anything I've written you know that I deny the existence of absolutes...defined as immutable indivisible, singularities.

But reality is independent of all perspectives. this does not mean all perspectives are equal.
Popper was a member of the circumcised clan, promoting postmodernism and his open societies. Soros took over.
His objective was to undermine western civilization, and make it safe for his kind.

Natural selection applies to ideologies as much as it does to biologies.
Nothing is equal.
That which is fit, within a given environment - existence, not manmade societies.
Truth refers to a perspective that is closest to nature as it exists beyond man-made systems, and existed before there were men to deny it relevance.
Existence, a.k.a., nature, does not give a shit about human ideals, and preferences.

So, what works is not necessary a 'lie' per se but a lie or conjecture of certain degrees which has no relation to whether it works or not.
What works is a not a question of truth, but must be contrasted with whether it is moral or not within a morality-proper FS.
That is a knife is true as verified by science, but its use is immoral if used to kill humans and acceptable if it is not immoral.

Morality evolved to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies. It is a behavior we witness in many social species, not only humans.
What you refer to is manmade amendments, that make complex human societies possible - I use the term ethics to differentiate.

When ethics contradict nature, they fail to produce the expected results, e.g., the ethical rules that maintain monogamy in a species that is not, by nature monogamous.
When restrictions wane - paternalism is absent - then humans revert to their primal behaviors, and families are no longer viable.

[Skepdick]

Almost all the topics here mention God.
But to talk about something, you should have an idea about it, unless you are a parrot.
So, what is your definition of God?
This applies to both theists and atheists.
There is a parable, an atheist came to the Rabbi and said to him,
- Rabbi, I don't believe in God.
And the Rabbi answers him,
- I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

It's anything you want it to be. A term that permits practically infinite equivocation/metamorphosis.

[attofishpi]

If there is a being that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent,

When anyone suggests that GOD is "omnibenevolent" ...i feel I need to remind them that this entity has threatened to burn them for the rest of eternity.

So in future, I'd recommend you drop that particular 'omni' part..

[promethean75]

"When anyone suggests that GOD is "omnibenevolent" ...i feel I need to remind them that this entity has threatened to burn them for the rest of eternity."

A fellow can only do one of two things when faced with that fact. Be a good boy and worship a god that is sending billions of others to hell for eternity because for some strange reason you enjoy the company of gods that do that, or be a noble philosopher and defy this god. Or better... pay no attention to it ("that is God's business, not mine" - Stirner). Not even defy it for that would give it recognition and the attention it so desired.

[attofishpi]

"When anyone suggests that GOD is "omnibenevolent" ...i feel I need to remind them that this entity has threatened to burn them for the rest of eternity."

A fellow can only do one of two things when faced with that fact. Be a good boy and worship a god that is sending billions of others to hell for eternity because for some strange reason you enjoy the company of gods that do that, or be a noble philosopher and defy this god. Or better... pay no attention to it ("that is God's business, not mine" - Stirner). Not even defy it for that would give it recognition and the attention it so desired.

Try ignoring the FACT that GOD exists once you have been given gnosis of that fact.

I have tested, or at least, have been tested by the 'burn in hell for eternity" concept on one of my more recent days of RECKONING.

To say I was scared of the 'sacred' on that moment in an extreme understatement. It (GOD) insisted I call out the word "NOW" -- at the end of the reckoning. Fact is, you'd not even insist on a mouse be the one to burn in hell forever. On the Day of Reckoning, you are forced to consider ALL those you know that have done terrible things and you consider judging them rather than yourself to have that ultimate of all "punishments", and I know a school teacher and what he did to a little boy - I travelled around Scotland with that c^nt. I judged myself, I will burn in hell eternity IF that is the TRUTH.

Anyway, the time came insisted upon me, to test my FAITH in GOD\Christ - it insisted I call the word 'NOW' and I would quite possibly then burn in hell for the rest of eternity - so I did it. I layed in bed ...and reluctantly called out NOW!

Nothing happened. No sentient being burns in some "hell" - but 666, now that's something ALL should consider. I don't care whether my former friend that raped a little boy he was trusted to look after gets turned into an animal - he is no man in my book.

He moved to China before I could get my hands on him after I found out. Funny thing is, apparently 666 is a good luck number in China - and so be IT.

[Janoah]

The typical is God is ... omnipotent,

This is philosophically incorrect, and Aristotle and Maimonides prove and explain this.
God "can do nothing" because He is only actual; potentiality is not inherent in Him.

***This can be proven by physically examining it and it need be verified and confirmed by science***

Science proves based on the law of nature.
Therefore, you believe in the reality of the law of nature.
God is the One law of nature, therefore, you have no reason to doubt the reality of God.

***Why you want God to be 'real' is purely due to psychological, emotional drives and pseudo-rationality.***

But you want the law of nature to be real, otherwise science will not prove anything, only old wives' tales will remain.

You got it wrong with Science.

Science never claimed there are real laws of nature out there that are absolutely independent of science.

But you personally, you believe in the reality of the law of nature, and you will not jump from the roof of a high-rise building, because you believe that the law of gravity is real.

[Janoah]

Almost all the topics here mention God.
But to talk about something, you should have an idea about it, unless you are a parrot.
So, what is your definition of God?
This applies to both theists and atheists.
There is a parable, an atheist came to the Rabbi and said to him,
- Rabbi, I don't believe in God.
And the Rabbi answers him,
- I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

God, in the Abrahamic tradition = a representation of the idea man. An ideal so supernatural no mortal man can ever attain it.

The philosophy of Judaism is most authoritatively represented by Maimonides, Maimonides is largely based on the proofs of Aristotle.
In the philosophy of Judaism there is no place for anthropomorphism in any case, and in general, God is purely immaterial.
The ideality of God is that only God is unchangeable.
In prayers, believers tune themselves to the right mood, but God “does not hear or see” literally the meditations of people, for nothing physical is inherent to God.

[Pistolero]

Yes, Protestantism is closest to Judaism, as is Islam.
Ergo, Americanism is Judaeo-Puritanism.

Messianic, claiming to be the chosen - manifest destiny - claiming to be an innocent benevolent victim of humanity who envy its goodness.
All these are part of the American zeitgeist.