• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What is this god of which you speak?

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
My perception of the worlds of God, godliness, and spirituality is... people with Fe have an easier time recognising God as real. Seems like, ENFJs and INTPs in particular. (And moving even further out on the limb, if TJs are believers, it's usually with some mechanistic hypothesis, God as Prime Mover.)

Faith being faith, proof is nice but beside the active point. So really the principle path to God is feeling, right?


It's not too terrible to say God is alienated feeling. ("Alienated" in the Marxian sense.) It's not the same as saying God doesn't exist. It's the same as saying feeling has been rendered "out there" and objectified. And saying that that feeling is about something real, that's faith, no?
 

antireconciler

it's a nuclear device
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
866
MBTI Type
Intj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so
There are actually a lot of things here worth replying to. Great comments.

I also will usually try to avoid the word "God", but I will consider it as:

that order or power which informs our consciousness with the will to structure and to harmonize, to promote life, balance, communication, and a transparent world reflecting ourselves, and self-refinement into alignment with this same structure. It is the force and light of reason, which through will to exist as self-aware, manifests itself in exteriority (the world) and finite embodiment (ourselves) in order to return to itself in perfect, absolute knowledge.

:)
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Eck probably isn't down with the idea of a messiah at all...let alone the work of one.

Does it matter though? Lots of other believers don't put much stock in the whole messiah thing either so it doesn't seem like it's terribly relevant to the question of what god is. IMO

(Apologies to you Eck if I'm out of line)

Is the question what God is, or what a god is?

If it's the former, then the question concerning the nature of the work of the messiah is relevant. Indeed, this question cuts to the core of the most basic issues that divide theists.

For the purposes of this post, let's assume that "theism" denotes the metaphysical position that only some is eternal, and that which is eternal brought into being that which isn't eternal. In this sense, there is agreement between all believers in a god. Once the preliminary, intellectual hurdles before theism are crossed, the next major obstacle is the problem of evil, and how one conceives of God in view of the problem of evil will subsequently shape how he conceives of the need, (or lack thereof), of a messiah and the work the messiah is to do.

Thus, how Eck answers my question--should he choose to--will reveal much of what he thinks of God, and this will better enable me to give rational responses to his questions.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
St. Anselm's ontological argument? I have to admit that argument is one of the few that is tough to beat

What? St. Anselm's ontological argument was like, the first thing we learned to refute in day 1 of philosophy class in college.

For the viewers, the ontological argument basically says:

1) There are two possible forms of existence--a thing/idea may exist in physical reality, or it may "exist" only in the mind, as an idea.
2) Obviously, it would be greater for any given thing to truly exist in physical reality than to exist purely in the mind, since if it exists in reality it necessarily also simultaneously exists as an idea.
3) If God is, by definition, infinitely great and totally perfect in every way, God must necessarily exist in physical reality as well as in the mind--such a perfect being existing only as an idea would necessarily make him less than perfectly great, which is impossible.


Wow, seriously?
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
What? St. Anselm's ontological argument was like, the first thing we learned to refute in day 1 of philosophy class in college.

For the viewers, the ontological argument basically says:

1) There are two possible forms of existence--a thing/idea may exist in physical reality, or it may "exist" only in the mind, as an idea.
2) Obviously, it would be greater for any given thing to truly exist in physical reality than to exist purely in the mind, since if it exists in reality it necessarily also simultaneously exists as an idea.
3) If God is, by definition, infinitely great and totally perfect in every way, God must necessarily exist in physical reality as well as in the mind--such a perfect being existing only as an idea would necessarily make him less than perfectly great, which is impossible.


Wow, seriously?

As I understand it, premise 2 is the most problematic.

You said you learned to refute this argument. Do you mind explaining why you think this argument isn't sound?
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
Do you mind explaining why you think this argument isn't sound?
Are you for real ..?


imagine the ugliest person possible,
for that person's ugliness to be really really perfect, it'd had to exist in reality too because it's better than exist only in mind
Therefore a person that ugly does exist.

The whole thing isn't even logical, it basically states than an idea is more real than reality when it goes for superlatives but give absolutly no structural reason why it should be so. It's like saying that you have red and blue, and when red is really really perfect, it becomes blue too.
So unicorns could exist if they were the most perfect horses ever. Which in my mind, they are. So awesome, unicorns do exist in reality too!

Mom, Dad, I'm harry freaking potter!
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, I have some theories, but people aren't going to like them much. :p

I think god is a product of power hungry individuals. Shamans, druids, and such of old.

It's a means to answer unanswerable questions. And gives people the power of influence over others. It is that, the birth of language/communication and 'greater understanding' that eventually shaped into religion as we know it today.

The idea of God. The omniscience. Seems to be based on the idea of 'everything'. The past, present and future. The whole of the universe and beyond. This idea of an absolute balance. A sense of 'nature', is the root of entities such as a God. So that god is not so much an entity. But made into an entity by us humans, because the context of a God. The idea of everything. Is beyond our comprehension. So to be able to comprehend such fully, it must be an entity, a sentient being, far greater than us, that governs all of nature.

Even though logic would state that there's no entity of God. God is all around us, but not as a sentient being.

So call it marketing or whatever, but at some point people found out that you can influence and manipulate beings into worshipping something. Into worshipping you. The power of suggestion is possibly the most powerful ally one can have. Even now in this era. But most definatly in older, more primitive societies.

That is God in a nutshell to me. And more often than not I am ridiculed for it. Which I find odd. Since I've never said to anyone that this is what they should believe in. Yet people keep trying to tell me what I should believe in. Well, that power of suggestion is lost on me. :yes:
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
What? St. Anselm's ontological argument was like, the first thing we learned to refute in day 1 of philosophy class in college.

For the viewers, the ontological argument basically says:

1) There are two possible forms of existence--a thing/idea may exist in physical reality, or it may "exist" only in the mind, as an idea.
2) Obviously, it would be greater for any given thing to truly exist in physical reality than to exist purely in the mind, since if it exists in reality it necessarily also simultaneously exists as an idea.
3) If God is, by definition, infinitely great and totally perfect in every way, God must necessarily exist in physical reality as well as in the mind--such a perfect being existing only as an idea would necessarily make him less than perfectly great, which is impossible.


Wow, seriously?

Thank you Gaunilo. :)

Nevertheless, there have been several refutations to the fool that have been written that aren't half bad ...you might want to look at some of those.

Nice job capturing the argument though. I would have given that a 5/5.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
As I understand it, premise 2 is the most problematic.

You said you learned to refute this argument. Do you mind explaining why you think this argument isn't sound?

There's a piece by a fellow named Gaunilo, a benedictine monk who wrote a response shortly after St. Anselm put his lovely argument out there for the world to see. Most believers think the response misses the point in the same way that all empirical arguments do. They argue that existence implies some sort of material reality (which as you know isn't a requirement for many folks of faith) that is inconsistent with the nature of a god . This is why the ontological argument is one of the better philosophical arguments. Unfortunately the believer is still stuck with the burden of describing an immaterial being that has an existence...no small task. There are a number of famous mathematicians that have tried, however. See below.

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
I've never found St Anselm's argument that convincing.

I would not say God is alienated feeling, nor would I say the people with strong Fe have a leg up on faith.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
My perception of the worlds of God, godliness, and spirituality is... people with Fe have an easier time recognising God as real. Seems like, ENFJs and INTPs in particular. (And moving even further out on the limb, if TJs are believers, it's usually with some mechanistic hypothesis, God as Prime Mover.)

Faith being faith, proof is nice but beside the active point. So really the principle path to God is feeling, right?


It's not too terrible to say God is alienated feeling. ("Alienated" in the Marxian sense.) It's not the same as saying God doesn't exist. It's the same as saying feeling has been rendered "out there" and objectified. And saying that that feeling is about something real, that's faith, no?

I've never found St Anselm's argument that convincing.

I would not say God is alienated feeling, nor would I say the people with strong Fe have a leg up on faith.

Well, if Kalach's assessment is correct that makes sense. I do know a number of NFs and INTPs that find it quite compelling, however. What you've shared with us is quite interesting thus far as well, but it still presents those of us who aren't on board with the notion of a god (of any sort) with a number of difficulties.

The thing about the ontological argument is that it is entirely logical. There is just some dispute about what existence consists in or whether existence is even a predicate. The version of god you've presented doesn't hold together logically and, is in that sense, less compelling. The ontological arguments cannot be tossed out on the basis of logical reasoning, they are sound. The best one can do is what Eck, SW, and Gaunilo have done and just say they suck. Sadly, this isn't a fair move for philosophers. If a philosopher wants to dispense with the ontological argument he/she has to establish how that second premise is false. The mathematician or logician (see Descartes, Leibniz, Goedel...) recognizes that there are things that may exist without a material "form". For these guys, an empirically real god wasn't the answer but they were all on board with some version of the ontological argument.
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Well, if Kalach's assessment is correct that makes sense. I do know a number of NFs and INTPs that find it quite compelling, however. What you've shared with us is quite interesting thus far as well, but it still presents those of us who aren't on board with the notion of a god (of any sort) with a number of difficulties.

The thing about the ontological argument is that it is entirely logical. There is just some dispute about what existence consists in or whether existence is even a predicate. The version of god you've presented doesn't hold together logically and, is in that sense, less compelling. The ontological arguments cannot be tossed out on the basis of logical reasoning, they are sound. The best one can do is what Eck, SW, and Gaunilo have done and just say they suck. Sadly, this isn't a fair move for philosophers. If a philosopher wants to dispense with the ontological argument he/she has to establish how that second premise is false. The mathematician or logician (see Descartes, Leibniz, Goedel...) recognizes that there are things that may exist without a material "form". For these guys, an empirically real god wasn't the answer but they were all on board with some version of the ontological argument.

I think the problem is that it assumes there is nothing better than physical existence. Maybe physical existence and ideal existence are only parts of Existence. It's like good-better-best. Just a thought. At any rate the whole thing is so abstract, and most likely not the most effective way of finding God.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
I think the problem is that it assumes there is nothing better than physical existence. Maybe physical existence and ideal existence are only parts of Existence. It's like good-better-best. Just a thought. At any rate the whole thing is so abstract, and most likely not the most effective way of finding God.

That it does not. The empiricists who do not like the argument assume it does however. There is nothing in the argument itself that describes a physical material requirement. The "real" here probably referred to a Platonic form of sorts (again why the mathematicians listed found it so compelling). There is absolutely nothing in any of the ontological arguments that tell us the being in question is to be found in the physical/material plane. There is still, however, that little problem of what is meant by existence...

You are right about the abstract thing. There seem to be a lot of people who prefer this way of thinking about god as indicated by the responses here. Does abstractness make it less plausible? How do we know the number (not the numeral) four exists?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
The thing about saying God is "alienated feeling" is it doesn't say too much about the nature of God. It says rather more about the nature of this end of the stick, us. It doesn't say God does not exist. It does say something like whoever it was once said, we all have a God-shaped hole in us, needing to be filled. We locate the God by identifying what we will feel for that God, and more or less that's all we genuinely do directly for God.

And, more or less, does anyone really have to do any more than that? The act of faith is an act of love--fraught, vexed, beatific, spontaneous, whatever--and does it truly need to know much more than the content of the love? And when I say "need", I mean "logically need".




And when I say "we", I don't mean me. Just so we're clear. See, I can't help but view the world through a processes and reasons lens, and God on such a view is an otiose and sufficiently unformed addition to the world's ontology that I can't honestly feature it as a substantial, substantive component of what it is to be here in this time for me. This, I probably believe, somehow or other, is of no consequence to the existence of God's love and other people's love for God. They are the source of their own love for God and as such they make it, at least, something of substance.

Maybe.

It is, however, kinda annoying having this big, unprovable thing hanging around.
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
That it does not. The empiricists who do not like the argument assume it does however. There is nothing in the argument itself that describes a physical material requirement. The "real" here probably referred to a Platonic form of sorts (again why the mathematicians listed found it so compelling). There is absolutely nothing in any of the ontological arguments that tell us the being in question is to be found in the physical/material plane. There is still, however, that little problem of what is meant by existence...

You are right about the abstract thing. There seem to be a lot of people who prefer this way of thinking about god as indicated by the responses here. Does abstractness make it less plausible? How do we know the number (not the numeral) four exists?

1) This seems like it limits real objective existence ("physical") to true or false, which I like. It then ascribes true objective existence to God out of necessity, due to the quality of perfection, which implies true objective existence. Works for me I guess, but still seems a little circular.

2) Very abstract, which is fine for those who like abstract stuff. To me it's just like walking a semicircle to get from point A to point B instead of a straight line. Still gets you there though.
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
The thing about saying God is "alienated feeling" is it doesn't say too much about the nature of God. It says rather more about the nature of this end of the stick, us. It doesn't say God does not exist. It does say something like whoever it was once said, we all have a God-shaped hole in us, needing to be filled. We locate the God by identifying what we will feel for that God, and more or less that's all we genuinely do directly for God.

And, more or less, does anyone really have to do any more than that? The act of faith is an act of love--fraught, vexed, beatific, spontaneous, whatever--and does it truly need to know much more than the content of the love? And when I say "need", I mean "logically need".




And when I say "we", I don't mean me. Just so we're clear. See, I can't help but view the world through a processes and reasons lens, and God on such a view is an otiose and sufficiently unformed addition to the world's ontology that I can't honestly feature it as a substantial, substantive component of what it is to be here in this time for me. This, I probably believe, somehow or other, is of no consequence to the existence of God's love and other people's love for God. They are the source of their own love for God and as such they make it, at least, something of substance.

Maybe.

It is, however, kinda annoying having this big, unprovable thing hanging around.

Ok. I think there is more we can do for God than that, but that is not really relevant here. It's just like juggernaut said though--can you prove the existence of four? No, but you still believe and use it. Just plug God in for four.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
As I understand it, premise 2 is the most problematic.

You said you learned to refute this argument. Do you mind explaining why you think this argument isn't sound?

For one, the definition in "3) If God is, by definition, infinitely great and totally perfect in every way" might not be correct, depending on what we attributing to God if we try to move from a vague abstract view to a practical/real one. IS there a being that is infinitely great and perfect, and how is "perfect" being defined?
 

Cimarron

IRL is not real
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
3,417
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Juggernaut, thanks. This is a more interesting thread than most of the ones revolving around religion. I was pleasantly surprised (because it means I won't have to repeat it :D ) to see my point of view covered so well in the first 20 posts or so already.

But you are right, something is logically lacking about the use of the term "God" for something that already has a term. ERM made a good post about how the meanings of words often overlap or are redundant, and I think he may be right, but I'm going to think about whether there's more to it than that. (more to post later)
 

Friend

New member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
10
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, died for our sins, or did miracles doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the manner in which people historically flocked to him, were astonished by what he taught and the authority in which he carried his message to the existing government. If you want to find out more about the man then the best place to begin in my opinion is by living his teachings, and see if your life and others' lives become better.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, died for our sins, or did miracles doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the manner in which people historically flocked to him, were astonished by what he taught and the authority in which he carried his message to the existing government. If you want to find out more about the man then the best place to begin in my opinion is by living his teachings, and see if your life and others' lives become better.

No, but thank you. :) I just want to know what god is today. Jesus is dead and the oldest religions in the world don't consider him god (and never have) anyway. I'm not disputing whether we should try to live our lives in a manner consistent with the way the man lived his life, but that's really a separate question. I'm interested in the existence of god/gods.
 
Top