Philosophy Now Forum

Some people, whom are often called "mystics", have throughout the ages, claimed to have come into some sort of contact with what is popularly called a "god" or "gods". What characteristics constitute a god or gods seem to have varied to whatever degree at different times in history. There are many institutions which we call "religious" presently in existence or which have historically existed in our world. The notion of a god or gods is a prominent feature of being a human being for many of us in our current world. Whether there is one god, many gods or none at all and whether anyone has truly encountered one or any god at all is a mystery I may never know the answer to while residing within the world. However, I assume there must be an objective truth value "out there" in the world to statements such as "god(s) exists". I see three general dispositions to take with respect to such statements.

1. At least one god exists.
2. No god or gods exist.
3. I am uncertain (to whatever degree) whether or not any god or gods exist.

Assuming that every statement or proposition must have an objective truth value (whether realistically verifiable or not), which of the three statements listed above best describes your position regarding the existence of a god or gods?

Note: by "god", I take it to generally mean some sort of supreme being, creator, intelligence (or whatever so many people seem to think exists), that is somehow essential to the universe AND exists apart or separate from any particular one of us "mere mortals". So, yes, if you are a god yourself, it sort of disqualifies you from voting. Maybe I'll create a poll in the future just for any resident gods to vote in. lol

Poll is attached. You are allowed to change your vote at any time should you change your mind. For those who do not like the 3 options given, I apologize for the inconvenience. You are obviously welcome to express your objections or alternatives in this thread where they may receive further consideration by all.

Thank you.

In the bible it is written that there are indeed other gods, as it says "you may not have other gods before me", directly saying that there ARE other gods.

I'd like to see a "How is this still a thing?" option.

Skip wrote:I'd like to see a "How is this still a thing?" option.

I'd like to see a "God isn't worth my while to bother with, as his life system is suboptimal, and he can go fuck himself" option.

Gary,

Define God and the theory of its existence. What work does this theory do?

If 'god' exists then I can only (off the top of my head) conclude...

(1) It's 'all powerful' but (for some reason) chooses not to involve itself in the world (I see no evidence of divine intervention in the world...do you?).

Since 'god' is not involved: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who sits back and does nothing but play voyeur (or, maybe, is off doing something else entirely).


(2) It's not 'all powerful' and -- for that reason -- can't do anything in the world.

Since 'god' is limited: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who may want to intervene but is incapable.


(3) It's so alien in the way it thinks (in agenda, goal, purpose, etc.) its action in the world is incomprehensible and indistinguishable from natural occurrence.

Since 'god' is an alien: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who is so far removed from me I can't hope to frame an entreaty it could even understand.


(4) It's a tricksy, manipulative, jackass playing with the world like my nephew does a June bug.

Since 'god' is a fucker: I'm on my own. Only good reason to spend time thinking about 'god' (in this case) is to figure out how to fly under its radar.


Of course: there may be no 'god'...in which case: I'm on my own...*shrug*

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Gary,

Define God and the theory of its existence. What work does this theory do?

Since there have been so many different conceptions throughout history of particular characteristics of god, the best I can do to "define" a god would be as some sort of supreme being that is somehow essential to the universe and other than or separate from my own conscious existence (and presumably separate from any other "mortal" as well).

I'm not sure what you mean by "what work does this theory do" so I can't answer that as of yet.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Gary,

Define God and the theory of its existence. What work does this theory do?

Since there have been so many different conceptions throughout history of particular characteristics of god, the best I can do to "define" a god would be as some sort of supreme being that is somehow essential to the universe and other than or separate from my own conscious existence (and presumably separate from any other "mortal" as well).

I'm not sure what you mean by "what work does this theory do" so I can't answer that as of yet.

Well you have a theory that there is such a thing as "GOD". All theories serve some purpose; to answer some question; or to explain some phenomenon.
So- what good is your theory in this respect?
How did this god thing come into being?
And what does god do?

It does not make sense to me that there would be any entity that would be SEPARATE from all that is. I think "separation" is a human concept. We humans seem oblivious to the connectivity of ALL -- and oblivious to the scope that is beyond the limitations of our perception of forms and boundaries. Therefore, within the boundaries of our own limits, we create gods who are identified as having human characteristics and being separate. It's all WE know.

Lacewing wrote:It does not make sense to me that there would be any entity that would be SEPARATE from all that is. I think "separation" is a human concept. We humans seem oblivious to the connectivity of ALL -- and oblivious to the scope that is beyond the limitations of our perception of forms and boundaries. Therefore, within the boundaries of our own limits, we create gods who are identified as having human characteristics and being separate. It's all WE know.

The universe is your god. Brilliant. Now we can carry on as if god were not important.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: The universe is your god. Brilliant. Now we can carry on as if god were not important.

How is the universe my god? What IS a god? Can you not recognize oneness and/or connectivity without it somehow being seen or defined as a god?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And what does god do?

Admittedly, I guess when I think of a god I sort of think of a divine moral "accountant" who keeps tabs on us all and somehow holds us accountable for things we do or don't do, sort of like an omnipresent "witness". Otherwise maybe god really doesn't need to "do" anything other than just be.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And what does god do?

Admittedly, I guess when I think of a god I sort of think of a divine moral "accountant" who keeps tabs on us all and somehow holds us accountable for things we do or don't do, sort of like an omnipresent "witness". Otherwise maybe god really doesn't need to "do" anything other than just be.

Adam ate of the Apple and beacme aware of his nakedness, and God asked Adam, where art thou?

.........................why would God ask Adam where he is, if God already knew that? ...seems God's omnipresents is something applied later, in the bible.

HexHammer wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And what does god do?

Admittedly, I guess when I think of a god I sort of think of a divine moral "accountant" who keeps tabs on us all and somehow holds us accountable for things we do or don't do, sort of like an omnipresent "witness". Otherwise maybe god really doesn't need to "do" anything other than just be.

Adam ate of the Apple and beacme aware of his nakedness, and God asked Adam, where art thou?

.........................why would God ask Adam where he is, if God already knew that? ...seems God's omnipresents is something applied later, in the bible.

I would be very surprised if the genesis story in the bible is a factual account of what it purports to be a factual account of. But I also don't necessarily believe that if the Bible isn't factual that therefore there is no god.

It does not make sense to me that there would be any entity that would be SEPARATE from all that is.

Actually, to push the parameters of thinkable thought, one might start from the First Impossibility, which is really a contradiction in terms since there is no other possible possibility: Existence itself. That existence exists. That there can be existence. That it arose. That we have a platform of Being. These are meditations that will forever be impenetrable. If one does not come up against wonder, it is possible that one is more or less dead. All notions of divinity arise out of that. But it would be wrong to say that man confronts incomprehensibility and then projects onto it (though the imagination does this, certainly). Men in their confrontation with the incomprehensible plunge the depth of their being as perception-organisms and attempt to give utterance to what they understand.

If one focusses on the fact of existence - as both an exercise of reason, or rational contemplation, as well as a contemplation that can involve the whole self - one comes face to face with a magnitude impossible to process. That existence exists, for the Rishis of ancient India for example, was the beginning of their meditation, their plunging in to the strangeness of it all. The dawn, the sky, the sun, the wind, the word (vak): these were all seen as parts of or manifestations of an eternal force: Brahman. Incomprehensible, impossible to fathom, eternal. It was the aspect of the eternal which seemed to have the most psychological power. They also conceived (in imagination, obviously, or in 'vision' if you wish) of infinite numbers of 'worlds' and the Sanskrit term is 'loka'. A loka is a zone or a centre which functions according to a set of rules and laws (rta). So, they set to work defining this particular loka: the earth-realm. What is very interesting about their system is that it is linked to material reality and so the 'metaphysic' they define is not 'separate' in the sense that lovely Lacewing has surmised.

The Jewish Yahweh is a local and a tribal god of a people with limited imagination (in comparison to the vedists, for example), and so the characteristics of the Christian god has taken that blush. Both a slave-driver, a literally psychotic and changeable personality, as well as a deliverer, this god-image is a radically different god-definition than say the vedic one. In this sense the god-concept of this Tyrant Yahweh came into conflict with the European (Indo-European) and pagan notion, which is also similar to that of the vedists, of a divinity that is eternal, incomprehensible, and whose imagination fixes on the natural manifestations of god such as water, fire, air, sun, star, woman, man, beauty, love, peace, time, birth and death.

One of the things I note in watching people here go through an absurd rehearsals of their near total ignorance of the evolution of ideas, and the breadth and depth of philosophy and theology, is that they are in essence in a battle against a specific dogmatic religious structure that they bitterly resist. But even that 'thing' itself they have no comprehension of, in any sense that could be taken seriously ... by anyone!