What is "God"?

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:04 pm Post subject: What is "God"?

Here are a few attempts at an answer:

1. God is the ultimate and non-negotiable priority in your life.

2. God is the bottom-line assertion used to tie all of the chaotic components of existence into a meaningful whole.

3. God is the power that heals, mends, and creates new life from death and decay.

4. God is the fundamental ground and source, primary meaning and purpose, ultimate value and goal of existence.

5. God is the incomprehensible, yet comprehensive, foundation and horizon of reality.

6. God is the ultimate authority, rule, director, guide, leader, teacher, support of one's life.

7. God is love.

8. God is a word used by different persons for multiple purposes and according to a wide variety of meanings and functions depending upon shifting contexts and settings.

Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 11/14/04 5:04 pm

Chris OConnor · Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:10 am Post subject: Re: What is "God"?

God is a mythological being that is said to have created the universe and everything in it. Different people assign different additional characteristics to this being, such as loving, good, and compassionate, but creator is pretty universal.

Chris

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:01 am Post subject: Re: What is "God"?

God was the creation of a scared and ill-informed early ancestor who needed something to explain that which was unexplainable. To assuage the fears, uncertainty and relatively short, brutal life of early mankind.

God is a means to feel good in an otherwise unfriendly life, but alas, due to the aggressive and exclusionary nature of human beings, it has been twisted into a force for conquest and a justification for atrocity.

God, simply, is a crutch...and does not exist...at least not in any way that our minds have imagined one to exist.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:17 pm Post subject: Re: What is "God"?

9. God is that to which you sacrifice your time, labor, talents and treasures.

10. God is that mystery from which all things arise from, move within, and head towards.

11. God is that to which you ultimately submit your allegiences, obligations, and commitments.

12. God is the which from which there is no whicher.

13. God is the monstrous abyss out of which arises all pleasure and pain, creativity and destruction, love and terror, life and death.

14. God is the fundamental guarantor and absolute support for the value of persons and the meaning of reality as a whole.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:55 pm Post subject: Re: What is "God"?

Nick

Quote:
God, simply, is a crutch...and does not exist...at least not in any way that our minds have imagined one to exist.

Well said, Nick. I'm not denying the possibility of some sort of deity existing, but all of the Gods I've heard described or defined, by humans, have fallen short in the rational department.

Chris

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:24 pm Post subject: Crutches

Mr. P: God is simply a crutch, and since I am so healthy, strong and free of any ailments or disease, I have no need of such things.

Dissident: Are you saying that humanity has no need of crutches?

Mr. P.: Well, not exactly, just that they have no need of make believe solutions to real problems.

Dissident: Oh, so, then you don't mean 'crutch' you say crutch.

Mr. P.: No, I mean 'crutch' in the way that drunks or addicts think they need their next drink or hit to 'carry' them through difficult times. When they keep relying on their crutch, they never get to use their legs to walk...or, they never get to find real solutions to real problems.

Dissident: Well, having spent a great deal of time in hospitals and in recovery clinics, I've found that crutches, splints, walkers, wheelchairs, casts, canes, etc. are absolutely essential to recovery from injury. Actually, no self-respecting Doctor would allow a patient to leave his care without a crutch of some sort, depending upon the injury.

Mr. P: So, what's your point?

Dissident: Wouldn't you say that humanity is terribly injured in a thousand different ways? I mean, severely crippled in mind, body, cognition, health, politics, education, religion, science, art, culture, ethics, law...whatever....we are a botched and bungled and dangerous species- wouldn't you agree?

Mr. P.: Sure. Dangerous enough to destroy the entire planet.

Dissident: Wouldn't this require a variety of crutches, splints, wheelchairs, etc.?

Mr. P.: You are confusing your metaphors.

Dissident: No, I'm being very literal. Humanity is crippled in need of immediate care and recovery, thus requiring some form of crutch. But, I don't necessarily ascribe such a negative connotation to the term as you do. I keep it simply medical.

Mr. P.: No, humanity needs to stand up and face reality for what it is...not relying upon fantasy, make believe, and superstitious nonsense.

Dissident: True. You demand humanity all walk, run and dance as healthy and vibrant and sane beings...perhaps like yourself- one of the lucky ones?

Mr. P.: What do you mean?

Dissident: Since you seem to walk without a limp, are free of injury, and absent the disease and malady that infect and disturb so many of us mere mortals...you must be one of the lucky ones. The rest of us, uggh...we have to live with imperfect, broken, flawed, incomplete, often ignorant, and occasionally criminal humanity...all in need of a crutch to help us along. You, on the other hand, dance and skip and run right over our heads!

Mr. P.: This is nonsense. I've only said that God is a crutch that I don't need- nor does anyone.

Dissident: Have you any need for any crutch?

Interbane · Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Crutches

Dissident: Wouldn't you say that humanity is terribly injured in a thousand different ways? I mean, severely crippled in mind, body, cognition, health, politics, education, religion, science, art, culture, ethics, law...whatever....we are a botched and bungled and dangerous species- wouldn't you agree?

I disagree with most of that. We are a dangerous species. Is a tiger botched and bungled? No, but it's certainly dangerous. Same with humans. Are we perfect? No, but that does not mean we are botched and bungled.

There's grounds to argue this from your worldview, but not from mine. It sounds odd, but that's just the way it is. You may call it relativity. For example, I believe in survival of the fittest and evolution. If that were the means to the end that is humanity, then we can be considered exceptional. We are the ultimate survivors.

The difference in worldviews is that my rating mechanism is evolution and survival of the fittest. Yours is the religion you believe in, which implies we were created. As we are, we've done great destruction to our planet. That is a logical sequitur to the idea that humanity is botched and bungled. Any contradiction you come up with is an expression of your worldview, which is incompatible with mine.

Sorry for butting in Mr. P, I enjoy debating with Dissident.

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:26 am Post subject: Re: Crutches

Chris Oconner: Different people assign different additional characteristics to this being, such as loving, good, and compassionate, but creator is pretty universal.

Only in monotheistic traditions. You could probably narrow that further to only Western monotheistic traditions. The Greeks, for instance, believed at certain points that Necessity created the world.

misterpessimistic: God was the creation of a scared and ill-informed early ancestor who needed something to explain that which was unexplainable. To assuage the fears, uncertainty and relatively short, brutal life of early mankind.

That's a pretty ill-conceived dismissal, given that early gods were often as brutal and fearful as anything else in the experience of early humanity.

God is a means to feel good in an otherwise unfriendly life, but alas, due to the aggressive and exclusionary nature of human beings, it has been twisted into a force for conquest and a justification for atrocity.

The fact that the aforementioned atrocities have, so far as history may serve as witness, almost always accompanied certain forms of religion suggests that the discrepency in your comment derives from the premise that God is a concept rooted in beneficience, not in any change in the nature of religion.

Well, not exactly, just that they have no need of make believe solutions to real problems.

The question is, which problems are addressed by the concept of God. You guys seem to have answers that you're well-satisfied with, and the necessary correlary to those answers is that everyone who believes that God solves those problems is deluded or irrational. I'd say that's an indication that your premise needs re-examining. It's entirely possible that the concept of God arose as a tactic for dealing with problems you haven't considered as part of the religious perview.

fpla83 · Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:42 am Post subject: Re: Crutches

I think Mr. P just about nailed it. Well done.

Doc Tiessen · Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:55 pm Post subject: Necessity

MadArchitect:

Could you explain more about the Greeks? You have mentioned the concept of necessity and I would like to hear more about this topic.

Chris & Interbane:
I must really conclude that you love to discuss with Dissident about God.

Diversity is Good!

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: Necessity

I'd like to thank MadArchitect for saying everything I'd like to say were I somewhat more articulate, better informed and in possession of time.

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

Interbane · Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:39 pm Post subject: Re: God is....

Niall, that seems an abstraction that is sufficient to explain the [experiences / emotions / thoughts / etc.] that people attribute to God. Though it is sufficient, it is not necessary to explain those things. Those things may be explained in other ways.

Epistemology asserts four conditions necessary for knowledge. Of those four, the one that it is most concerned with epistemology is that you have sufficient evidence for the belief.

One of the 'good reasons' that are the basis of knowledge by sufficient evidence is that of intuition. Many people base knowledge off intuition, and I see the above post by you using this basis. Yet intuition as a basis for knowledge is an idea that has eroded in recent times. There are numerous factors that have contributed to this erosion. Some are self evident, others not.

I'll explain them if you'd like, but I'm out of time.

Niall001 · Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:13 am Post subject: Re: God is....

That'd be great thanks Interbane.

I don't know if intuition as a basis for knowledge has eroded in recent years. I'd say that people have stopped acknowledging it as the basis of their beliefs.

All beliefs are based on intuition. Some things cannot be proven. There is no logical means to verify logic's validity. But we feel that it is correct. To some, it seems ridiculous to question its validity because it seems to be a self evident truth to them. Likewise, other issues are similarly mocked, such as the problem of the privacy of people's minds, the accuracy of language and the accuracy of human perception. People don't consider these issues to be problems, because they seem obvious. Yet, belief in such things is intuitive. It is not the result of logical reasoning. Though when questioned, a logical justification may be attempted but these are intrinsically impossible.

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

irondemon · Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:40 am Post subject: Intrinsically impossible

Trying to grasp the justification for those things which appear axiomatic gives me that strangely enjoyable mind-ache. I feel like a child who continues to ask the adult, but why? Finally, having drilled (cognitively) to the bedrock of existence (do we actually achieve that depth), one can go no further, and must content oneself with the answer of why x must be true: because it cannot be the case that x is not true. Oh the circulairty?! The possibility (if not actuality) that existence's enabling act* is neither provable nor justifiable is simultaneously pleasing and troubleseome.

*I refer to an enabling act not in the physical sense of a caused effect over time, but in a more legal use of the word signifying the authority through which the negation of non-existence occurs, and by which existence itself is goverened. Although maybe Leibniz would argue the two definitions describe an identical concept? And maybe that concept is a deity. Which is probably my answer to the question in the original post to this thread. However, its not much of an answer, the deity. The answer certainly does not bring me any closer to the truth. In that sense, or to the extent that having no answer places me in the same epistemological and ontological location as having a deity be the answer, I would assert that the answer is useless. Ah, and maybe that, then, is my real answer to the question of what is god: useless.

Interbane · Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: Intrinsically impossible

Niall, intuition as a basis for knowledge holds the same foundational position as memory, and perception. There is a fourth, but I can't recall it off the top of my head.

When you say that in order to use perception as a basis for knowledge there is an intuitive understanding, you are touching on a different aspect of epistemology. That is a circular reductionist aspect that leads to a point where you erode all foundations to nothing, leaving you with nothing.

Like MadArchitect said, the intuitive feeling we have that sense perception is a solid basis for knowledge is the area that we must all provisionally agree is true.

Intuition as a basis for knowledge can be reduced to subpoints, around a dozen or so in the book I'm currently reading. Some of these points include modern explanations of counterintuitive truths, such as the uncaused middle or Euclidean Geometry.

These modern discoveries that are counterintuitive are the waters that erode intuition's merit as a foundation for knowledge. That is not to say that there aren't intuitive truths; I'm sure there are. But the strength of the conviction we have with intuition as a foundation for knowledge is lessened due the existence of many counterintuitive truths.

Quote:
Trying to grasp the justification for those things which appear axiomatic gives me that strangely enjoyable mind-ache.

I agree, my debates with MadArchitect have lead me to start reading philosophy, and I'm soaking up books like kids eat candy. It's fun, but at the same time, there's a little less 'magic' in everything I see.

Quote:
but in a more legal use of the word signifying the authority through which the negation of non-existence occurs, and by which existence itself is goverened.

Are you speaking of the method by which we as humans slowly uncover what we see as the truth? Or a much more fundamental concept where you're making a distinction between what is real and what is not?

To better word it, a subjective or objective concept?


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT