What is the concept of God philosophically?

[Greatest I am]

Nature excludes God. What is its self-embracing One Law that They are?

Nature embraces the God concept and so has humanity.

We forget that, given the foolishness of supernatural belief.

May I ask.

Do you put God above or below yourself?
God here I define as a best ideal, natural or supernatural or whatever gives you the best rules and laws to live by.
Consider first, that you are an animal first, and anything else after your mental birth.
The God, or best ideal or type of an ant, is an ant.
The God, or best ideal or type of a lion, is a lion.
The God, or best ideal or type of a human being, is a human being.
We are natural and spiritual beings, not supernatural beings, and should thus follow a natural and spiritual religion, not a supernatural based religion.
Thoughts?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Nature excludes God. What is its self-embracing One Law that They are?

Nature embraces the God concept

How?

and so has humanity.

2/7ths

We forget that, given the foolishness of supernatural belief.

Who's we?

May I ask.

Do you put God above or below yourself?

Neither. Nor alongside. I put Them in the meaningless box.

God here I define as a best ideal, natural or supernatural or whatever gives you the best rules and laws to live by.

That's your 'idioslexis'. Not my definition of God, or my personal morality.

Consider first, that you are an animal first, and anything else after your mental birth.
The God, or best ideal or type of an ant, is an ant.
The God, or best ideal or type of a lion, is a lion.
The God, or best ideal or type of a human being, is a human being.
We are natural and spiritual beings, not supernatural beings, and should thus follow a natural and spiritual religion, not a supernatural based religion.
Thoughts?

I aspire to be kind. To understand. To tolerate. And fail miserably here.

[Greatest I am]

I aspire to be kind. To understand. To tolerate. And fail miserably here.

[/quote]

I think you are a poor judge of character who does not know himself.

You should not be surprised by your failure. Sounds like you reached your level of competence a w long time ago.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I aspire to be kind. To understand. To tolerate. And fail miserably here.

I think you are a poor judge of character who does not know himself.

You should not be surprised by your failure. Sounds like you reached your level of competence a w long time ago.

No you don't. You can't. Think.

[Gary Childress]

That's right, just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not.
The law is not material, therefore nothing material is inherent in it, neither sympathy nor antipathy.

If there is a God, then that seems plausible.

Thanks, Gary, for your opinion.

You are welcome. Thank you for sharing your beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The law of nature existed, naturally, before the appearance of life on Earth.
The law of gravity existed before the apple fell on Newton's head, without the law of gravity the Earth would not exist.
Scientists discover laws that exist independently of these scientists

You're right that, in the conventional scientific framework, laws like gravity are treated as existing independently and "discovered" by scientists. That's how empirical science works—and it's extremely effective.
However, there are nuanced deep philosophical views to the above common sense, convention and philosophical realist views.
You have to widen your thinking vista.

Here's from Kant who argued, the Laws of Nature cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions. Kant is not saying humans exclusively invented the Laws of Nature like what is dictated by legal laws, but only that we cannot extricate the human factor from the Laws of Nature.

Kant Copernican Revolution explained:

“We ourselves introduce that order and regularity in appearances which we call nature… We could never find them in appearances, had not we ourselves originally set them there.” (CPR A125)

Kant's point in the Critique of Pure Reason isn't to deny gravity or science—it's to explain how we can experience anything like a law-governed nature in the first place.

In other words, the necessity and lawfulness we find in nature isn't just out there waiting to be discovered—it’s a structure our mind contributes to experience itself. The law of gravity is valid within experience—but its lawlike character is not mind-independent; it's grounded in the a priori conditions that make nature intelligible to us in the first place.

Kant’s view doesn’t deny the world—it just says: we only know it as it appears, structured through space, time, and causality, which are not found in things-in-themselves but imposed by the mind. That’s how science becomes possible.

Btw, science never claim there are absolute-certain Laws of Nature awaiting human discover, science merely ASSUME they exist out there to facilitate their quest of more and more polished Laws of Nature. Hope you understand the criticalness of the term 'ASSUME' in this case.

All the above is to restraint theists from reifying an illusory God as a real entity sending messages to prophets and messengers; the messages that demand believers kill non-believers in the name of a religion for the sake of the survival of a man-made religion.

Kant stated, one can THINK of a God, but only as a mere THOUGHT and never something constitutively nor substantial; such a thought-out illusion can nevertheless be a useful illusion to soothe soteriological existential pains.

Kant was wrong. Order is computable. In its opposite. Entropy. Like complexity. Order does not imply meaning.

I am not disputing you on common and conventional sense.
However, you could not get to the nuances, i.e. shift paradigm?

"Order is computable" by whom?
How can you leave out the human factor in the computation?
Whatever the results, it is a human-based [collective] result.
There is no way you can separate the human factor from whatever is reality.
If so, provide justifications it can be done.

Kant argued this human-based view is more realistic and practical with a sense of humility in it.

[Perspective]

...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.

Good parable - I can relate. Often, when atheists describe the God they don’t believe in, I agree with them, that such a god is fake, immoral, etc. IMO, Atheism is based on strawman logical fallacy - out of +800 attributes of God listed in just the Bible, they pick the craziest one that is easiest to refute.

I’m still in the process of figuring out what God may be. I lean towards a universal intelligent design & system of operation. But that’s not all - there’s what I experience within me… “the kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you.” Axiomatic.

If people hate what’s going on within them, then they should change it, rather than hating God by pretending God (spiritual/intuitive experience) doesn’t exist. The power of belief is too proven to pretend it has no influence. So, atheism is not only illogical but also unwise, IMO.

[Gary Childress]

I don't feel God in my heart. I almost always feel like a wretch. I wish I could feel God's presence.

There's a saying I've heard a lot lately in a Christian rehab program I've been attending: " Let go, let God." I have the most difficult time wrapping my head around that, but the gist of it seems to be to let go of trying to control the world around me and just be me and let God take the lead. I guess it makes sense. I just don't know how to do things differently from what I am doing.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You're right that, in the conventional scientific framework, laws like gravity are treated as existing independently and "discovered" by scientists. That's how empirical science works—and it's extremely effective.
However, there are nuanced deep philosophical views to the above common sense, convention and philosophical realist views.
You have to widen your thinking vista.

Here's from Kant who argued, the Laws of Nature cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions. Kant is not saying humans exclusively invented the Laws of Nature like what is dictated by legal laws, but only that we cannot extricate the human factor from the Laws of Nature.

Kant Copernican Revolution explained:



Kant's point in the Critique of Pure Reason isn't to deny gravity or science—it's to explain how we can experience anything like a law-governed nature in the first place.

In other words, the necessity and lawfulness we find in nature isn't just out there waiting to be discovered—it’s a structure our mind contributes to experience itself. The law of gravity is valid within experience—but its lawlike character is not mind-independent; it's grounded in the a priori conditions that make nature intelligible to us in the first place.

Kant’s view doesn’t deny the world—it just says: we only know it as it appears, structured through space, time, and causality, which are not found in things-in-themselves but imposed by the mind. That’s how science becomes possible.

Btw, science never claim there are absolute-certain Laws of Nature awaiting human discover, science merely ASSUME they exist out there to facilitate their quest of more and more polished Laws of Nature. Hope you understand the criticalness of the term 'ASSUME' in this case.

All the above is to restraint theists from reifying an illusory God as a real entity sending messages to prophets and messengers; the messages that demand believers kill non-believers in the name of a religion for the sake of the survival of a man-made religion.

Kant stated, one can THINK of a God, but only as a mere THOUGHT and never something constitutively nor substantial; such a thought-out illusion can nevertheless be a useful illusion to soothe soteriological existential pains.

Kant was wrong. Order is computable. In its opposite. Entropy. Like complexity. Order does not imply meaning.

I am not disputing you on common and conventional sense.
However, you could not get to the nuances, i.e. shift paradigm?

"Order is computable" by whom?
How can you leave out the human factor in the computation?
Whatever the results, it is a human-based [collective] result.
There is no way you can separate the human factor from whatever is reality.
If so, provide justifications it can be done.

Kant argued this human-based view is more realistic and practical with a sense of humility in it.

Entropy is so regardless of observation. Anything else, including our Gods, is grandiosity. The universe will die of it comorbidly. It has nothing to do with us. The existence of observers within the timeframe of the universe is practically infinitesimal: order of magnitude the first hundred billion years, after the first ten, out of googolplex. Zero in the calculus. There is no human factor, except hubris.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't feel God in my heart. I almost always feel like a wretch. I wish I could feel God's presence.

There's a saying I've heard a lot lately in a Christian rehab program I've been attending: " Let go, let God." I have the most difficult time wrapping my head around that, but the gist of it seems to be to let go of trying to control the world around me and just be me and let God take the lead. I guess it makes sense. I just don't know how to do things differently from what I am doing.

Neither does anybody, that's everybody, else Gary. You're perfectly normal. Get meaning from keeping busy. Live in those moments. And above all, be kind. I wish I could be! That's all in Kierkegaard's leap of faith (which wasn't to belief in God, he had that already). In fact it's beyond, as he never made it; he isolated himself, from receiving and giving love, and ruined himself self-publishing. He'd rather be right than happy.

I'm a hard atheist but will never challenge faith. I envy it. Covet it. Miss it. Yearn for it. Weep for it. And get busy. There are believers who are much smarter or/and kinder than me whom I admire.

There's always Skyrim.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant was wrong. Order is computable. In its opposite. Entropy. Like complexity. Order does not imply meaning.

I am not disputing you on common and conventional sense.
However, you could not get to the nuances, i.e. shift paradigm?

"Order is computable" by whom?
How can you leave out the human factor in the computation?
Whatever the results, it is a human-based [collective] result.
There is no way you can separate the human factor from whatever is reality.
If so, provide justifications it can be done.

Kant argued this human-based view is more realistic and practical with a sense of humility in it.

Entropy is so regardless of observation. Anything else, including our Gods, is grandiosity. The universe will die of it comorbidly. It has nothing to do with us. The existence of observers within the timeframe of the universe is practically infinitesimal: order of magnitude the first hundred billion years, after the first ten, out of googolplex. Zero in the calculus. There is no human factor, except hubris.

The nuance is very counter intuitive but it is widely considered within the philosophical community as in Philosophical Realism versus ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.

The argument is this:
Reality is all-there-is.
Humans are part and parcel of all-there-is
Therefore, human cannot be absolutely independent of reality.

The above is a valid argument.

The first instance would be that philosophical realists will view anti-philosophical-realist [e.g. Kantian] is stupid but they [philosophical] do have a valid argument for their point. This philosophical view is also very common within Eastern and Greek philosophy.
Note Protagoras's 'Man is the measure of all things'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

From another perspective, philosophical realists are chasing an illusion albeit a useful illusion.

Note, Einstein's claim, the moon exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, but he was wrong from a nuanced perspective.

Analogy: Are you familiar with the old-woman - beautiful lady illusion, the philosophical realists like you can only see one of the form but cannot toggle to view the two form from different perspectives.

If you can simply brush this as silly claim, then it is your loss to understand [not necessary agree with] of something that could broaden your philosophical vista.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

@Veritas Aequitas, as someone who luxuriates in Stendhal's syndrome, in the face of beauty; art's or nature's, why would I do that?

Unless my brain was severely impaired.

My heart finds ecstatic joy to tears, unbidden, utterly spontaneous, non-invokable; I have no control over it whatsoever. It stops me breathing.

Meaning is where you find it. I find it in Monet (and I have to be standing in front of him, or Turner, or Sissley, or Burn Jones) and Hydrangea macrophylla. Sometimes. I cannot make it happen, but it will happen. Akin to orgasm.

Poetry, literature, history, films, the news, bad and good, angst, landscape, seascape, skyscape, the maelstrom of memory, can all move me to tears, or at the least catch my breath. As can a woman's face. The most beautiful thing I saw last year and forever, primus inter pares, is the video of a deaf baby hearing their mother for the first time. My breathing falters recalling it.

Evolution has pre-wired me for these experiences. I am very grateful. I say thank you out loud. Not enough! Thank you.

[Belinda]

Nature excludes God. What is its self-embracing One Law that They are?

Nature embraces the God concept and so has humanity.

We forget that, given the foolishness of supernatural belief.

May I ask.

Do you put God above or below yourself?
God here I define as a best ideal, natural or supernatural or whatever gives you the best rules and laws to live by.
Consider first, that you are an animal first, and anything else after your mental birth.
The God, or best ideal or type of an ant, is an ant.
The God, or best ideal or type of a lion, is a lion.
The God, or best ideal or type of a human being, is a human being.
We are natural and spiritual beings, not supernatural beings, and should thus follow a natural and spiritual religion, not a supernatural based religion.
Thoughts?

Jesus is the best or ideal type of a man: that description of Jesus suits a modern age which is scientific not supernatural.

[Belinda]

I don't feel God in my heart. I almost always feel like a wretch. I wish I could feel God's presence.

There's a saying I've heard a lot lately in a Christian rehab program I've been attending: " Let go, let God." I have the most difficult time wrapping my head around that, but the gist of it seems to be to let go of trying to control the world around me and just be me and let God take the lead. I guess it makes sense. I just don't know how to do things differently from what I am doing.

Neither does anybody, that's everybody, else Gary. You're perfectly normal. Get meaning from keeping busy. Live in those moments. And above all, be kind. I wish I could be! That's all in Kierkegaard's leap of faith (which wasn't to belief in God, he had that already). In fact it's beyond, as he never made it; he isolated himself, from receiving and giving love, and ruined himself self-publishing. He'd rather be right than happy.

I'm a hard atheist but will never challenge faith. I envy it. Covet it. Miss it. Yearn for it. Weep for it. And get busy. There are believers who are much smarter or/and kinder than me whom I admire.

There's always Skyrim.

You claim to be a hard atheist,

but you love beauty. Beauty is truth and truth beauty. Beauty is a way to approach God.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't feel God in my heart. I almost always feel like a wretch. I wish I could feel God's presence.

There's a saying I've heard a lot lately in a Christian rehab program I've been attending: " Let go, let God." I have the most difficult time wrapping my head around that, but the gist of it seems to be to let go of trying to control the world around me and just be me and let God take the lead. I guess it makes sense. I just don't know how to do things differently from what I am doing.

Neither does anybody, that's everybody, else Gary. You're perfectly normal. Get meaning from keeping busy. Live in those moments. And above all, be kind. I wish I could be! That's all in Kierkegaard's leap of faith (which wasn't to belief in God, he had that already). In fact it's beyond, as he never made it; he isolated himself, from receiving and giving love, and ruined himself self-publishing. He'd rather be right than happy.

I'm a hard atheist but will never challenge faith. I envy it. Covet it. Miss it. Yearn for it. Weep for it. And get busy. There are believers who are much smarter or/and kinder than me whom I admire.

There's always Skyrim.

You claim to be a hard atheist,

but you love beauty. Beauty is truth and truth beauty. Beauty is a way to approach God.

Only if They approach me. Which They can not. Keats does. Talks to that which emerges from, on my evolved wiring. Beauty no more implies absolute intentional meaning than order in general does. If you believe, then sure, beauty is filtered through that lens. I can not.