Questions about this "god" thing

[Nick227]

Those beings were on a higher plane than you...more powerful than you. But they were still fallible. So it was not too great a leap of logic to assume another level beyond them...beings that were even more powerful. Take this a few steps further, and eventually you reach a point where you posit the existence of an 'ultimate' god...the original god, the one from whom all other gods came. This god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent...it is impossible for a higher or more powerful god to exist than this one, because this god is infinitely perfect.

Some of the gnostic texts list a hierarchic of gods just as you describe. Check out the Gnostic Library http://www.gnosis.org/library.html for some of the texts.
This concept of greater and greater levels of gods is the source of the expression "Seventh Heaven."

Usually, there's creedence also given to the notion of a "ground of being" - a ineffable source from which all these Gods and other things emerge. Thus, the notion of deity having some supreme power is diluted considerably. This is true of, I think, most of the main schools of Gnosticism we know about, certainly Valentianism and I think the Marcionites.

Orthodox Christianity didn't bother with the old Ground of Being, giving it's God a bit more clout.

Nick

 

[Radrook]

Virtual particles are readily accepted as emerging out of nowhere. As if "nowhere" was a somewhere from which things can magically emerge. No acceptance difficulties there.

 

[Complexity]

Virtual particles are readily accepted as emerging out of nowhere. As if "nowhere" was a somewhere from which things can magically emerge. No acceptance difficulties there.

They also go away quickly.

If only xians would do the same.

Besides, virtual particles are real, unlike the topic under discussion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My question for those who believe in god(s):

Who is wrong, the polytheists, or the monotheists?

Who is wrong, Jews or Christians (is Jesus god/son of god, and must you accept Him as your savior; or is he a false prophet)?

I haven't yet heard the answer that Catholicism uses (I was looking for it on the "prove or disprove" thread): that they think that all other ideas of God are just imperfect perceptions of their one God.

(Yes, they also use that idea to explain the striking resemblance of any number of pre-Christian myths to the Jesus story. Their story is true, but pagans were allowed to get murky revelations of it ahead of time. Plagiarism! No way! I think it's time to put Occam's Razor under a pyramid or something because it's getting awfully dull. . . .)

And that's without even comparing their triune God to the polytheists multiple deities that might be seen as aspects or person of one thing.

And don't even get me started on a "monotheism" that has all these patron saints in charge of different things (to whom you can pray to intercede to God on your behalf in their bailiwick)!

 

[jimtron]

I haven't yet heard the answer that Catholicism uses (I was looking for it on the "prove or disprove" thread): that they think that all other ideas of God are just imperfect perceptions of their one God.

(Yes, they also use that idea to explain the striking resemblance of any number of pre-Christian myths to the Jesus story. Their story is true, but pagans were allowed to get murky revelations of it ahead of time. Plagiarism! No way! I think it's time to put Occam's Razor under a pyramid or something because it's getting awfully dull. . . .)

And that's without even comparing their triune God to the polytheists multiple deities that might be seen as aspects or person of one thing.

And don't even get me started on a "monotheism" that has all these patron saints in charge of different things (to whom you can pray to intercede to God on your behalf in their bailiwick)!

I've yet to hear a reasonable answer for how to determine which interpretation of which scripture most accurately reflects god. And it really bugs me when people say something like, "all faiths are different paths to the same god." There can't be one god and many gods; Jesus can't be god and a false prophet.

If there's one thing that's clear, in my view, it's that (assuming god exists) none of us can know which (if any) interpretation of which scriptures of which faiths are accurate. How would you know?

 

[Nick227]

If there's one thing that's clear, in my view, it's that (assuming god exists) none of us can know which (if any) interpretation of which scriptures of which faiths are accurate. How would you know?

I think you'd have to look for yourself. And probably at some stage resign yourself to the liklihood that what you discover will not be communicable, in meaningful terms, to another. Certainly "looking for yourself" seems to have been a central aspect to resolving these questions for very early Christians.

Nick

 

[skeptic of oz]

I can understand the curiousity inherent in the orignal post (and I'll admit to wondering about the same things) but it appears that the more you try to sek clarity in Biblical/theological questions, ironically things become even less clearer. It just leads to greater confusion.

 

[jimtron]

I think you'd have to look for yourself. And probably at some stage resign yourself to the liklihood that what you discover will not be communicable, in meaningful terms, to another. Certainly "looking for yourself" seems to have been a central aspect to resolving these questions for very early Christians.

Nick

But is one searching for the interpretation that most accurately reflects god, or is one searching for the interpretation/scripture that appeals to them the most? The latter makes sense is one is looking for a philosophy or way of living--but that's not religion. If religion is about choosing the morality and way of life that's most appealing to an individual, that's fine, but then let's not pretend that there is a Christian or Jewish or Muslim god that has a specific way He wants us to live.

Why won't the discovery be communicable?

 

[jimtron]

I can understand the curiousity inherent in the orignal post (and I'll admit to wondering about the same things) but it appears that the more you try to sek clarity in Biblical/theological questions, ironically things become even less clearer. It just leads to greater confusion.

Why? IMHO, I think this might be because faith requires a certain amount of self-delusion. The truth is, I think, that there is no way of determining if the Jews or the Christians are right about the divinity of Jesus. There is no way of knowing if the Koran, or the Hebrew Bible, or the NT most accurately reflects the truth about god. Most likely, in my view, they're all made up by mortal men and have nothing to do with god. So it's impossible for folks to have "clarity" with these questions, because there's no way to explain it other than, "I just decided that this interpretation of this scripture of this faith" is what I decided on. Or, I guess it's clear if you believe that god spoke to you or something direct like that.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Response: If it disagrees with the bible it must be wrong.

Nice, I love it when someone drops that rhetorical bomb. They might as well stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and go "blah, blah, blah, I'm right you're wrong, blah, blah, blah!"

Such behavior is just plain childish

Um, so the point of all that ranting is that it really annoys me that there are all these scientists working their butts off to provide a rational argument for the way things are, but the sum total of the believers argument is "God did it".

Conclusion: Omnipotence ruins everything!

To be fair, to say that "God did it" isn't really the same as saying "The Bible is infallible". The former is a classic argument from ignorance, whereas the latter is an argument from authority. Both are clearly logical fallacies, just different ones - though I can see how one could interpret them to be the same if you look at it as if God was the author of the Bible.

 

[blobru]

Virtual particles are readily accepted as emerging out of nowhere. As if "nowhere" was a somewhere from which things can magically emerge. No acceptance difficulties there.

God accepts the virtue of prodigals; why not virtual particles?

 

[Nick227]

But is one searching for the interpretation that most accurately reflects god, or is one searching for the interpretation/scripture that appeals to them the most?

Well, according to some beliefs these amount to the same. I guess God usually comes down to being some form of organising principle inherent in manifestation. Thus the separation between man and God is essentially purely conceptual. This is where I find it gets to once you start to get in the realm of "ground of being"/organising principle.

The latter makes sense is one is looking for a philosophy or way of living--but that's not religion. If religion is about choosing the morality and way of life that's most appealing to an individual, that's fine, but then let's not pretend that there is a Christian or Jewish or Muslim god that has a specific way He wants us to live.

Well, religion rarely makes sense on a rational level, if you ask me. What you're proposing is far too sensible!

Why won't the discovery be communicable?

You'd have to start and find out.

Nick

 

[Dragoonster]

Let us assume there is a "god". Here are some obvious follow up questions:

k, following that assumption...

1. Why assume one "god" as creator of the universe?

eep, that makes me wonder whether my initial assumption is deist or uni-religious or what. Or...what is your definition of "a"? If it means "one" then you've already answered your first question.

But assuming "a" meaning "some" higher power exists, I think I could only assume that one god was the creator if only one god presented itself adequately.

Adequate presentations: A personal epiphany. Or an amazingly "showful" demonstration that leaves every scientist/metallurgist/engineer slack-jawed at the impossibility. Since I'm not any of those, I'd have to take their word that their slack-jawedness meant "wow, God really does exist". So...best for me would be personal epiphany.

2. From whence came this "god"?

Seems a philosophical question. Whence came the start of infinity? If God demonstrated His existence to satisfcation, the question would have little meaning. At least, current to our brains and imaginations of ephemera.

3. If "god" created everything, then did "god" create itself?

See response to point 2. If one truly believes in God, one would have to believe God is capable of either existing forever, or spontaneously creating Himself, or whatever it is God says He is. The answer wouldn't really matter.

Inquiring minds want to know. Of course, this all assumes that such a thing (or things) exist in the first place - something of which I am quite doubtful.

Indeed. I was tempted to remove your quotations around "god" because they show your bias in every response. If you truly assume a God (capital G, no quotations, no doubt) exists, what would your response be?

These mental exercises can too easily devolve into metaphysics, when the purpose of the exercies is to presume a certain metaphysic is absolutely true. And too many fellow agnostics or atheists seem unwilling to even imagine the possiblity.

Too much confusing the issue and micro-analysing. If you BELIEVE God exists, you would be explaining from what that God told you, not overly analysing what He didn't. Nothing needs to be rational or even able to be understood by imagination. The argument would only extend from the doctrines of whatever god that is.

Already we're onto "the Bible" and "Occam's razor" and the terror of evil existing. Meaningless if you BELIEVE "a god" exists. I'm only all-capitalizing that because the assumption seems to have been lost after the original post.

Maybe I misinterpreted the intent of the thread. If so, yeah (any) God sucks, the Bible is useless, theists are stupid...

 

[fkwebinash]

Let us assume there is a "god". Here are some obvious follow up questions:

1. Why assume one "god" as creator of the universe?
2. From whence came this "god"?
3. If "god" created everything, then did "god" create itself?

Inquiring minds want to know. Of course, this all assumes that such a thing (or things) exist in the first place - something of which I am quite doubtful.

1)Because it would be a blasphemy.

2)He came from God.

3)He created from himself, sort of. A previous God created him. It's creators all the way up.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

3)He created from himself, sort of. A previous God created him. It's creators all the way up.

...And turtles all the way down (sustaining the planet earth)

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Let us assume there is a "god". Here are some obvious follow up questions:

1. Why assume one "god" as creator of the universe?
2. From whence came this "god"?
3. If "god" created everything, then did "god" create itself?

Inquiring minds want to know. Of course, this all assumes that such a thing (or things) exist in the first place - something of which I am quite doubtful.

Having some doubts about your decision NOT to believe Mattus?

(just this post makes it seem that way...especially on this forum)

 

[MattusMaximus]

Having some doubts about your decision NOT to believe Mattus?

(just this post makes it seem that way...especially on this forum)

Nope. I still see no reason to believe in any god(s). I just want to get a discussion going on some philosophical questions that interest me.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Indeed. I was tempted to remove your quotations around "god" because they show your bias in every response. If you truly assume a God (capital G, no quotations, no doubt) exists, what would your response be?

I used the quotes around "god" because I've found that when discussing such questions, most people do not use the same definition of "god". If there were actually a definition that we could agree upon, then perhaps the discussion would be more fruitful - but try getting various believers to agree on a definition of "god". It's worse than herding cats

These mental exercises can too easily devolve into metaphysics, when the purpose of the exercies is to presume a certain metaphysic is absolutely true. And too many fellow agnostics or atheists seem unwilling to even imagine the possiblity.

Unwilling to imagine what possibility? That "god" exists? It seems to me that even by starting a thread on the topic one might be willing to entertain the idea. Entertaining an idea and being a full-blown believer are two different things.

Too much confusing the issue and micro-analysing. If you BELIEVE God exists, you would be explaining from what that God told you, not overly analysing what He didn't. Nothing needs to be rational or even able to be understood by imagination. The argument would only extend from the doctrines of whatever god that is.

You are assuming the existence of a "god" that a) talks to people, and b) is apparently male. Why make such assumptions?

Already we're onto "the Bible" and "Occam's razor" and the terror of evil existing. Meaningless if you BELIEVE "a god" exists. I'm only all-capitalizing that because the assumption seems to have been lost after the original post.

Okay, so what's the difference between "a god" and "God"? And I think you'll find numerous religious people who disagree that such a thing is meaningless.

Maybe I misinterpreted the intent of the thread. If so, yeah (any) God sucks, the Bible is useless, theists are stupid...

Yes, you apparently have misinterpreted the intent. My intent is not to be mean to or make fun of theists (poly- or mono-). Believe it or not, I'm actually interested in attempting to have a halfway serious discussion of some of these philosophical topics.

 

[Dragoonster]

Yes, you apparently have misinterpreted the intent. My intent is not to be mean to or make fun of theists (poly- or mono-). Believe it or not, I'm actually interested in attempting to have a halfway serious discussion of some of these philosophical topics.

Sorry.

Philosophically, the intial assumption/axiom that god or any conscious higher power does exist is an enormous assumption. I just think people are glossing over it and not actually considering or hypothesizing of their reaction if they knew a god existed. They're arguing the assumption that they're supposed to assume, which is completely beside the point you intend. The assumption should be assumed, not argued. Otherwise it wouldn't be an assumption.

In any event my responses to each question are still what I think, philosophically. I can't fathom a god and my philosophy is rooted in personal experience as its base. Again, the assumption that a god exists is enormous, I would have to know this by epiphany or incredibly strong evidence. But if I assume that he exists, he wouldn't/couldn't be explained by any of my other understanding of natural law. He'd be unnatural and fairly unexplainable until/if he deigned to explain himself.

My philosophy would be: 1. standard one I've always held, including rationality and such, but 2. yes, god or gods does exist and can blow up my notions any time he/it wishes. I don't see much point in trying to figure out god if he's unnatural and outside of rational explanation.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Very cool response. Thanks!