God is... or ____ is

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

God is... or ____ is

Postby kingofdreams » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:48 am UTC

Not a debate, but rather a sort of census, I was hoping to discern a few novel concepts of what it means to be "god." As simple or complex, novel or orthodox as you like, with as little or as much detail as you wish. Even as simple as an abstract concept such as "god is change" or "god is context."

As I said I'd love any form of input but explanations are rewarded in karma and internetz.

As there is no credible operant definition for God, I'd be happy to hear an opinion on any other great undefined truth, perhaps 'truth' is, or 'love' is or 'life' is, any and all are appreciated, I didn't know which to headline.
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Iv » Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:31 pm UTC

God is nonsense

This is actually a belief called theological noncognitivism (you know it's serious because it has a long name). It is a belief that God, how it is described and adored by most religion, is a non-coherent concept. Religions took the habit of dispelling the paradox and logical inconsistencies by calling them Miracles or Mysteries. Bear in mind that in the catholic faith, God is also Jesus, who is a man but not a man, it is eternal but died and revived, it is one and it is three. One can not state provable things about God without being inconsistent.

God is your conscience

This is my belief that God is a mental construct, a personality built in the part of our social brain that usually emulates people. It is what makes us anthropomorphize the universe. When priests say that God is in the heart of everyone, it is somehow true : it is a side-personality embedded in all believers' brain. Ever noticed how the personality of God changes depending on the people who talk in his name ?

God is a feeling

It is strange to see people say they experienced something marvelous, a wave of love, a feeling of enlightenment, etc... and attribute it to an exterior being rather than to their own brains.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby General_Norris » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:18 pm UTC

God is an obsolte word for what scientists call singularity. I find it obsolote because you can't say an infinite chain is God because God is a noun and not an adjective.

My reasoning is the following. I exist (Cogito ergo sum). I could have been created from another beign and that beign from another and so on. If everything is created by something else then we have an infinite chain which is illogical, a singulariy. However if not everything is created from another being we have something created from nothingness which is illogical, a singularity.

Now, that's the hard meaning. Some people call a certain magical beign, which may or may nor overlap with the hard meaning of God a god.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby mosc » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:15 pm UTC

I wrote this in another thread. It's not particularly well worded but enjoy:
mosc wrote:As a Jew, I believe there is a little piece of God in all of us. It inherently provides a direction for right and wrong. You could say I think you are a religious being whither you agknowledge it or not. We are all god's children, regardless of if you want to be or not. Course, I'm not saying it's some kind of supernatural force at all. Nor is it distinctly human. I think it's in our genes as much as anywhere else. There's nothing spiritual about it really, it's just the belief that you are capable of it.
...
God = Good
Good = God
...
Good flows from god and we all have a little of god in us sure but more than that, the concept of god could be expressed ITSELF to be a manifestation of good. I explain god by the good just as much as the good coming from god.

You could think of god as just another word for the good in all of us yes. I don't think that's a matter of just renaming, I think it's a spiritual concept. Also, my religion is MOSTLY about doing good in the world, yes.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby duckshirt » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:34 pm UTC

Iv, I disagree with your "contradictions":
Iv wrote:God is also Jesus, who is a man but not a man
What do you mean 'not a man?' Jesus is a man, but not a mortal man.
it is eternal but died and revived
He is eternal and died and revived. During that day and a half that he was dead, it is said he descended to Hell, but he never ceased to exist.
it is one and it is three
He is one, in three forms.

The harder part is when people say nonsense and then place "God can" in front of it (e.g., "God can dig a hole so deep that even he can't get out."). CS Lewis's answer would be that placing "God can" in front of nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsense; personally, my response would be that if you can place nonsense in front of "God can," then you can answer it with nonsense as well (e.g., "Yes, God can dig a hole so deep that even he can't get out, and then he can get out.").
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby mosc » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:49 pm UTC

Yay for another "how does god having a son not violate the first commandment" threads.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

ducktape
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:42 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby ducktape » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:54 pm UTC

mosc wrote:I wrote this in another thread. It's not particularly well worded but enjoy:
mosc wrote:As a Jew, I believe there is a little piece of God in all of us. It inherently provides a direction for right and wrong. You could say I think you are a religious being whither you agknowledge it or not. We are all god's children, regardless of if you want to be or not. Course, I'm not saying it's some kind of supernatural force at all. Nor is it distinctly human. I think it's in our genes as much as anywhere else. There's nothing spiritual about it really, it's just the belief that you are capable of it.
...
God = Good
Good = God
...
Good flows from god and we all have a little of god in us sure but more than that, the concept of god could be expressed ITSELF to be a manifestation of good. I explain god by the good just as much as the good coming from god.

You could think of god as just another word for the good in all of us yes. I don't think that's a matter of just renaming, I think it's a spiritual concept. Also, my religion is MOSTLY about doing good in the world, yes.



Thank you, I was about to say the same thing (I'm Jewish also.)
God is the goodness of the world. Which (for me) means the expression "oh goodness" works great.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby General_Norris » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:06 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:I
it is eternal but died and revived
He is eternal and died and revived. During that day and a half that he was dead, it is said he descended to Hell, but he never ceased to exist.


If we didn't cease to exist then he didn't die. That's the contradiction.

And yes, I agree that people saying "Can God make a Sandwich so spicy..." and consider that illogical should also think that the idea of God is illogical.

popprocks
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:18 am UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby popprocks » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:54 pm UTC

"God" is the easy answer to any difficult question.

*Although the test of time shows it's continually a wrong answer.

MoghLiechty2
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby MoghLiechty2 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:33 am UTC

General_Norris wrote:If [h]e didn't cease to exist then he didn't die. That's the contradiction.

Sure, it's a semantic contradiction, but until we examine the physical or logical underpinnings to the semantics, such a conclusion isn't warranted. It is certainly possible to equate "die" with "cease to exist," but I don't know that this is appropriate, even in a Naturalistic sense. Certainly when beings die, they don't cease to exist, and indeed the biological or medical definition of death is a nuanced one. Philosophically, to die certainly doesn't warrant a cessation of existence, especially in a non-Naturalistic worldview, which you must be assuming in a very strict sense here. A situation under the umbrella of Classical Theism could certainly be envisioned where the non-physical portion of Jesus remained while his body "died" physically, whereupon his soul was in a sense reincarnated into a revitalized body. Crazy, sure, but certainly not contradictory in any philosophical or physical sense.
_____________

God is a philosophical concept, and if He exists, a physical and non-physical reality, and if He is personal and good, then the hope of humanity.

As put by Plantinga:
Alvin Plantinga, paraphrased wrote:According to theism, God, the ultimate cause of all natural entities, is a necessary being--one that exists in all possible worlds. This is certainly so according to most varieties of theism. This means that the proposition there is such a person as God is also true in all possible worlds. Further, according to those same brands of theism, God has his central properties--omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection--essentially; he has them in every world in which he exists.

In other words, God is the only "Is" that there is and has all the "Haves" that can be had. It is thus appropriate that the God of Abraham, when asked to give a name to himself, calls himself "I am."

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:38 am UTC

peace mighty warriors, I welcome all perspectives, and seek not to question any theory presented, this thread is not the place for such debate, but rather for uncriticized presentation.


this does not necessarily apply to the immediatly proceeding post
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Bright Shadows » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:56 am UTC

Hm... I don't think adding anything to the end of that does God justice... I'll leave it as "God is".
Image

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby sje46 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:57 am UTC

A god is any omnipotent and omniscient intelligence.
God (in Abrahamic religions) is the only omnipotent and omniscient intelligence, who also created the universe.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

Woegjiub
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:22 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Woegjiub » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:36 am UTC

a god is a construction of humanity, made to "explain" mysteries, and dispel the fear of death (I find immortality a much more terrifying premise TBH).

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Iv » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:38 am UTC

duckshirt wrote:
Iv wrote:God is also Jesus, who is a man but not a man
What do you mean 'not a man?' Jesus is a man, but not a mortal man.

I mean the whole arianism mess : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
I also mean that Jesus is supposed to have a different will than God the Father despite being the same person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Go ... ee_persons
duckshirt wrote:He is eternal and died and revived. During that day and a half that he was dead, it is said he descended to Hell, but he never ceased to exist.

I quite know that the miracle of Jesus resurrection is a central dogma of catholic faith, it must not blind us to the fact that saying "he died for our sins" is a bit nonsensical when you know he resurrected afterwards, being God and all that stuff. Ok, this one is more a strain put on the definition of "death" than a paradox.
duckshirt wrote:He is one, in three forms.

He is one substance, three persons, two wills. With no definitions of what a substance, a person or a will is. It uses in fact variable definitions to accommodate for all situation when the concept of Trinity appears to contradict itself.
duckshirt wrote:The harder part is when people say nonsense and then place "God can" in front of it (e.g., "God can dig a hole so deep that even he can't get out.").
How is this nonsense ? I can dig a hole so deep that I can't even get out. Note that this one is not an argument against God, it is an argument against absolute omnipotence. It is a reasoning that is common in logic : to determinate if P is true, assume P true and try to find a paradoxical situation caused by P. In logics, we assume P true. In theology, we call it a miracle that can face paradoxes.

My position on the definition of god is that it is so imprecise that a believer could well find out that an atheist believes in the same absolute : god's will is non-discernablefrom the work of yet-to-be discovered physics laws. So, its will is impenetrable. Before Newton some people said that angels were pushing planets in the sky in order to make them go around. After Newton we know it is gravity. Where is a definition that state that Gravity can't be an angel of God ?

EDIT: corrected the quote mess
Last edited by Iv on Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:41 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

BeerBottle
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:26 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby BeerBottle » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:54 am UTC

Translation of Quran 112 wrote:He is the one and only God
God upon whom all else depends
He does not beget, neither is He begotten
And none are comparable to Him.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:26 pm UTC

good point Iv, god as the immutable laws of physics (in b4 the laws of physics aren't immutable), or at least his hand shows as such.
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

MoghLiechty2
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby MoghLiechty2 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:59 pm UTC

Iv wrote:He is one substance, three persons, two wills. With no definitions of what a substance, a person or a will is. It uses in fact variable definitions to accommodate for all situation when the concept of Trinity appears to contradict itself.

The trinity is like an N-dimensional set projected homogeneously onto 3 different subsets Mi of N by functions Fi. This is a generalization of my more simple analogy, which is that the Trinity is like a floating vase in a corner with a shadow on both walls and the floor.

Nobody would argue that the fact that the projections (the shadows) look differently is a contradiction on the reality of the vase. In fact, the true nature of the vase is only discernible by somebody living in 3-Dimensional Euclidean space. However, each individual attribute (a function within dimension D, over which N operates) is discernible in the projected spaces Mi if the homogeneous projection Fi doesn't collapse D into 0. This means that some attributes of God aren't discernible from the particular projected space, but that doesn't mean that God's revealed form in that projected space is any less of God. It's a limitation on the space that God is operating in (more specifically, the means of discerning God in that space), not on God himself. Thus, a contradiction would only be evident if the same attribute in the same dimension D was projected, and is discernibly different, in Mi for multiple i.

User avatar
IcarusRising
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:45 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby IcarusRising » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:57 pm UTC

As St. Thomas Aquinas would have it, there's no reason to define omnipotence in any other way than being all that is possible. Thus (according to him), believers who assert that God can make a rock that He can't lift, and then lift it, are guilty of reckless logic, and not to be credited. Of course, this begs the question: why is God subject to laws (of logic, if nothing else)? Whose laws are they anyway? Is God subject to God's laws? If God is the only determinant of God, whence the presumed internal consistency of God?

God is an infinitely recursive Hofstadter-Möbius loop. :wink:

User avatar
snails
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:58 am UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby snails » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:13 pm UTC

As there is no credible operant definition for God, I'd be happy to hear an opinion on any other great undefined truth, perhaps 'truth' is, or 'love' is or 'life' is, any and all are appreciated, I didn't know which to headline.


The truth is that none of us can ever know the Truth--we can only be more certain of certain things than others.

We are far, far more fallible than we think. As Socrates said, no man is wise, but some are less ignorant about their ignorance. As Einstein said, the universe is not only stranger than we know, but stranger than we can even imagine. He even proved his own principle by contradicting it: dismissing Quantum Mechanics because of his misplaced faith that "[God] does not throw dice."

This is the one notion I am most certain about, and the one I most wish more people would realize. The simplest hubris of all is conviction, because nobody can ever have reason to be certain of anything. And how many crimes could have been averted if only people had been less certain of their delusions?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby doogly » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:03 pm UTC

I really like the theological noncognitivism linked to up top.
Also, Snails, you are misreading Einstein. He didn't dismiss QM, in fact he was essential to its development. He considered it incomplete. These are vastly inequivalent attitudes.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Iv » Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:56 am UTC

IcarusRising wrote:Of course, this begs the question: why is God subject to laws (of logic, if nothing else)?
Well, not obeying the laws of logic is one of the definitions of "nonsense" in my book.

MoghLiechty2 wrote:This means that some attributes of God aren't discernible from the particular projected space, but that doesn't mean that God's revealed form in that projected space is any less of God. It's a limitation on the space that God is operating in (more specifically, the means of discerning God in that space), not on God himself.
A projection is usually not reversible : a circular shadow can come from a disc or a sphere. During the operation of shadow projection or the "godly projection" some information and capabilities is visibly lost. The analogy you give could maybe work for the Sepiroths but the dogma of the trinity insist on the equivalence of the three forms. In fact, I believe that saying they are three forms of another fourth, "truer" object is an heresy.

Anyway, the use of the convoluted logic used by priests has a very practical goal : confuse believers into thinking that there is a higher truth they do not see and that priests and their hierarchy are its keepers.

MoghLiechty2
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby MoghLiechty2 » Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:39 am UTC

Iv wrote:A projection is usually not reversible : a circular shadow can come from a disc or a sphere. During the operation of shadow projection or the "godly projection" some information and capabilities is visibly lost. The analogy you give could maybe work for the Sepiroths but the dogma of the trinity insist on the equivalence of the three forms. In fact, I believe that saying they are three forms of another fourth, "truer" object is an heresy.

You are correct; a homogeneous projection is not invertible. From the projected space itself (or from one piece of the trinity) it's not possible to attain a full knowledge of the essential nature of the actual object itself or of God. But the analogy still holds to the extent that the analogy applies. Your assertion that there is an insistence on "equivalence" of the three forms is certainly not true in the strict and obvious form of the word "equivalent." No interpretation of the trinity that I know of holds this. They share the attribute that all are God, but that doesn't make them equivalent. In the case of my analogy, the projected spaces are still disjoint. I also object to your usage of the word "truer" as if the projected spaces or the portions of the trinity more "falser" than the unprojected space of N dimensions or of God. They each truly reveal a limited perspective on a real object. Simple as that. They aren't "forms of" the real object, they're "images of" it. More theologically put, the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit aren't forms of God, because "form" would imply a loss or change of attribute from portion to portion, when in fact the three portions are revealed with non-disjoint observable attributes (all attributes of God proper). They are "revealed persons" of God.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby doogly » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:41 pm UTC

Your description seems to say that the Threeness is as revelations or images, but the Oneness is what is essential. You are certainly welcome to this, but I do not think it suits every Christian group. In my Lutheran education we were specifically warned away from this.
For instance, if the persons of the trinity are revealed persons, is the threeness a necessary truth? Could not the one god been revealed in two persons, or four? That would be conceivable, no?
This is why I think the noncongnitivism works - we were specifically told that there is no sensible way to combine both the oneness and threeness within mortal understanding, and that this is mystery.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Seminal
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:16 am UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Seminal » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:31 am UTC

As was pretty much said before, I think that God (in the Abrahamic faiths) is a philosophical construct.
His primary purpose is to motivate followers into doing the right thing (like the scriptures themselves)
and so, as such, is a somewhat subjective model of omnibenevolence. Religious dogmas are not, and cannot be,
all-encompassing. Time simply erodes and reshapes morality.

Even though the scriptures (which I haven't read) have examples of His actions and thoughts, there are
still cases where the followers must imagine what God (or Jesus/a Bodhisattva/Shiva/whoever)
would do and execute that path.

User avatar
IcarusRising
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:45 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby IcarusRising » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:40 am UTC

Iv wrote:
IcarusRising wrote:Of course, this begs the question: why is God subject to laws (of logic, if nothing else)?
Well, not obeying the laws of logic is one of the definitions of "nonsense" in my book.

That's kind of the problem. If God operates in the context of logic, sense, and nonsense, that where did the context comes from. Why is the guy who invented logic constrained by it?

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby duckshirt » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:17 am UTC

I wouldn't say he is; ultimately, he's above our comprehension.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby doogly » Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:22 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:I wouldn't say he is; ultimately, he's above our comprehension.

If you want to say this, you can go ahead, but then I kindly request that you (the general you, not you, duckshirt) not start listing properties of god, like having a bunch of plans and commandments and so on. An illogical (or alogical) god is not consistent with any of the religions practiced.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

MoghLiechty2
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby MoghLiechty2 » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:58 pm UTC

The inability to comprehend something fully, in general, does not preclude being able to know certain things about it. Duckshirt does not describe an illogical God, but rather one that us, as humans, are unable to logic about to a maximal extent, if only a partial extent. Indeed, one can comprehend the external relevant features of an Object without understanding the hidden, inner workings.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Soralin » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:10 pm UTC

Even if that's the case, many times theists will attempt to describe those hidden inner workings, saying things like god is love, or god wants x, which are internal to how the object works. And if you're relying on only the external parts, the parts that we can see and interact with, then while that could logically leave you with the external facets of a black box, in reality that leaves you with nothing at all, since there aren't any observable or interactable parts of gods in reality.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby doogly » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:11 pm UTC

MoghLiechty2 wrote:The inability to comprehend something fully, in general, does not preclude being able to know certain things about it. Duckshirt does not describe an illogical God, but rather one that us, as humans, are unable to logic about to a maximal extent, if only a partial extent. Indeed, one can comprehend the external relevant features of an Object without understanding the hidden, inner workings.

This has nothing to do with our humanity. What we call logic, we can do. If we cannot logic about some object, it is not something that can be logiced at all. And I can't see a logical way to set up a boundary between a logical part and an alogical part; I also can't be convinced of one, which you should be able to do if logic is what you're doing. To me it seems like if your logical part is still a part of the object, it has to in some way depend on input from the hidden part for how it functions, so it is not going to be a completely logically consistent thing. Consistency and completeness are essential for logic.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

MoghLiechty2
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby MoghLiechty2 » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:48 pm UTC

doogly wrote:This has nothing to do with our humanity. What we call logic, we can do. If we cannot logic about some object, it is not something that can be logiced at all. And I can't see a logical way to set up a boundary between a logical part and an alogical part; I also can't be convinced of one, which you should be able to do if logic is what you're doing. To me it seems like if your logical part is still a part of the object, it has to in some way depend on input from the hidden part for how it functions, so it is not going to be a completely logically consistent thing. Consistency and completeness are essential for logic.

I probably disagree that an object that cannot be "logiced" (I can't find what the word should be...) by humans cannot be logiced at all. Why should this be? I can envision a situation where the physical minds performing discrete functions in a physical world might have very little to be able to say about a process, function, or object outside of the realm in which it operates. This may or may not actually be taking the definition of logic proper and extending it to something else, but I still believe the two share very essential attributes. The logic we know of is in fact very discrete, and this "pseudo-logic" may be a different subset or function on infinitude, but both probably share a few important axioms, most importantly the Law of Noncontradiction. But the argument about the inability to fully comprehend God probably doesn't fully depend on your statement being necessarily false.

The more important fact about God's existence is that a substantial portion of it (if he existed) would very likely be hidden except for the personality and attributes which He chooses to reveal to humanity. (Does this make God deceptive? I'm going to say no: only to the extent that it'd be deceptive for God to create the universe and then not provide humans with the ability to find, say, dark matter.) Perhaps the humans would be able to say very profound and logical things about the nature of God if they just had a bit more information about Him, but perhaps they don't.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby doogly » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:55 pm UTC

MoghLiechty2 wrote:This may or may not actually be taking the definition of logic proper and extending it to something else,

It may, is what I'm saying.
And I agree if there is a nonlogical inner part and a revealed part, what we can say about the revealed part depends upon the choice of revelation. But, if we can't use logic about the whole thing, the inner part is going to invariably muck up any attempt to logic the revealed part. You use your first order logic to prove statement P, I can use first order logic plus an extra invoking of the black box to prove not P.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

MoghLiechty2
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby MoghLiechty2 » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:06 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
MoghLiechty2 wrote:This may or may not actually be taking the definition of logic proper and extending it to something else,

It may, is what I'm saying.
And I agree if there is a nonlogical inner part and a revealed part, what we can say about the revealed part depends upon the choice of revelation. But, if we can't use logic about the whole thing, the inner part is going to invariably muck up any attempt to logic the revealed part. You use your first order logic to prove statement P, I can use first order logic plus an extra invoking of the black box to prove not P.

What would this invocation of the black box look like? And is it representative of anything that philosophical Theists do in actual logical discourse?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby doogly » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:14 pm UTC

I'm generally thinkin an appeal to some kind of mystic experience, but I am much more familiar with mystics than, say, the scholastics. They probably did similar things but are keen on avoiding saying things like ''I invoke the black box,'' not least of all because that phrase would be anachronistic. I think if you have some disagreement among theists you want to rout out the source of, you can probably find it at invocations of inner workings.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby achan1058 » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:31 pm UTC

I must say I cannot tell what god is, I can only tell what god is not.

If we can even imagine, comprehend, or describe it, it is not god. If a real god exists, he (it? seeing gender is most likely meaningless with such a being, if it is even a being, that is) is so out of our imagination any sense to describe him is meaningless, especially things as "trite" as good/evil. Think about it this way, would you care that certain cells in the Game of Life suffocates other cells?

At least, that's my belief anyways.

User avatar
IcarusRising
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:45 pm UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby IcarusRising » Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:05 am UTC

doogly wrote:I'm generally thinkin an appeal to some kind of mystic experience, but I am much more familiar with mystics than, say, the scholastics. They probably did similar things but are keen on avoiding saying things like ''I invoke the black box,'' not least of all because that phrase would be anachronistic. I think if you have some disagreement among theists you want to rout out the source of, you can probably find it at invocations of inner workings.

The invocation of natural law in modern catholicism might suffice as an example. Rather than invoking the 'black box' per se, the roots of such statements seem to generalize as 'it is intuitively obvious that N is the divine purpose of Y, and by extension, moral engagement of Y must be limited to N.' Arguments such as this lie behind church stances on contraception, the all-male priesthood, and other moral statements that are not, in fact, intuitively obvious (it took centuries for natural and moral law to even be closely coupled in Christian theology, I think?). And these are generally considered valid even when they may seem to conflict with the most obvious interpretations of the 'revealed' persons/aspects/commandments of God (though I may be misinterpreting precisely what you mean by such a statement). They tend to disassociate such claims from the deity itself, but 'N is the divine purpose of Y' is much the same as 'God thinks Y should be for N as per the black box.'

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Griffin » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:57 am UTC

God is the player.

He watches us... when he wants to. He interferes in subtle ways, when he would find it entertaining. He can be both malicious and benevolent, for his whim is irrefutable. He plays favorites, though believing in and worshiping him does little to gain that favour. He has access to all knowledge, but that does not mean he knows all - he knows only that upon which he focuses, and thus decides to know. Many things may escape his attention. He can enter this world through the rules for such that bind him, and these his avatars allow him to interact much more directly with the peoples of the world - but also they may die. If he does die in such a way, he does not cease to exist, because even as he projected himself into a mortal form he remained forever also outside, watching and influencing.

He did not create the structure of the universe, or creatures or the world... but he initiated this instance of those things. He is as bound by rules as we are, if not more so, but he may, if the mood strikes him and hes willing to put in the effort, break or change those rules.

He is not the only god. He is merely one of many. And though there is only one player, that does not mean other gods never play. Still, this is His world, not theirs, and as our god is one, even if other gods exist.

That's honestly how I think of god anyways.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby Iv » Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:24 am UTC

IcarusRising wrote:The invocation of natural law in modern catholicism might suffice as an example.

No need. The current pope is considered an expert theologian and rhetorician. I read some of his speeches and I can say that he went further : he uses a postmodernism-like style. Use 5 complicated word per sentence (not everyone knows what 'cenobitic' means), use convoluted phrases, and pretend that they logically follow from each other. It does not, but who cares ?

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: God is... or ____ is

Postby kingofdreams » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:05 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:God is the player.

He watches us... when he wants to. He interferes in subtle ways, when he would find it entertaining. He can be both malicious and benevolent, for his whim is irrefutable. He plays favorites, though believing in and worshiping him does little to gain that favour. He has access to all knowledge, but that does not mean he knows all - he knows only that upon which he focuses, and thus decides to know. Many things may escape his attention. He can enter this world through the rules for such that bind him, and these his avatars allow him to interact much more directly with the peoples of the world - but also they may die. If he does die in such a way, he does not cease to exist, because even as he projected himself into a mortal form he remained forever also outside, watching and influencing.

He did not create the structure of the universe, or creatures or the world... but he initiated this instance of those things. He is as bound by rules as we are, if not more so, but he may, if the mood strikes him and hes willing to put in the effort, break or change those rules.

He is not the only god. He is merely one of many. And though there is only one player, that does not mean other gods never play. Still, this is His world, not theirs, and as our god is one, even if other gods exist.

That's honestly how I think of god anyways.


thank you, the kind of post I was hoping for
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests