What is your philosophy on God?

[Mole]

Absolute power is characterised by the power of life or death. And this is precisely the power of God - God had the power of life and death over each one of us.

And God created us in His own image so naturally we imitated God's absolute power in institutional slavery. For the slave owner had the absolute power of life and death over their slaves.

And slavery has been the history of humanity right up until 1833 when institutional slavery was abolished for the first time in history by the House of Commons.

So why are we surprised today to find we still hanker for absolute power by worshipping a God of absolute power.

And whatever we worship, we become.

And indeed absolute power is best expressed in totalitarian ideologies - two of whom we have defeated, while the third is on the rise.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I don't find it surprising that people are monotheistic, but I find it surprising when smart people are monotheistic.

I don't think it's possible to believe in god when you really consider the evidence logically, which there is none. Some people can't, which is understandable. But others, who are able to question and reason, abandon those faculties when it comes to god. That I just don't get.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Pantheism - The Forever All

How I Define The Universe as a Pantheist

 

[Lark]

God is awesome and nothing compares to God.

As the angels side in the war in heaven proclaimed when they kicked Lucifer and his followers to the curb:

Who is like unto God?

<3 <3

 

[Stanton Moore]

There is no god, or sky Father. This is an invention, created to understand things that were beyond the comprehension of primitive man, and perpetuated by the inner-6-year-old of modern humans.
We now can see deeply into the heavens, and god has receded with each technological advance.
So god is an entirely irrational concept. But you are free to believe in anything that gives you comfort, no matter how fanciful or irrational!

 

[metalmommy]

I suppose pantheistic. I see God as "all that is." I believe everything is part of a greater whole. Everything is interconnected and interdependent. Even in the Bible God is the great I Am. All that is. Simply.

I was raised Christian/monotheistic. I have little use for religion. It is a flawed human construct which often serves to cloud true spirituality and more often stunt real spiritual growth and exploration. I see it as a means of control. And a way for many people to pretend to be spiritual without actually giving it much thought.

 

[xisnotx]

I think I always want to know more. The concept of God fulfills that. Though I think it's a good thing, sometimes it tortures me. But, realizing that that isn't the aim of that goal, that the goals are above me, and by implication, that God is as well, is comforting. So, basically, theism.

 

[UniqueMixture]

But really the kicker is the moral argument against God.

For we know that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrrupts absolutely. And as God has absolute power, God is absolutely corrupt.

But worse, by worshipping an absolutely corrupt God, we become corrupt ourselves.

So common decency suggests we cease worshipping a God with absolute power.

Perhaps power just tends to attract the absolutely corruptible

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080404/full/news.2008.738.html

 

[Mole]

God is awesome and nothing compares to God.

As the angels side in the war in heaven proclaimed when they kicked Lucifer and his followers to the curb:

Who is like unto God?

<3 <3

Gosh, and the answer is -

We are! 'Course we are created in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Lady_X]

Panentheism mostly I guess

 

[RaptorWizard]

After doing a bit of further research, I found out that the particular form of Pantheism I adhere to is a philosophy called Pandeism which, of course, is the perfect synthesis of Pantheism and Deism.
Here is a site along with a description I found on the subject:

So why have we continued, over all these centuries, to throw ourselves after false leads? Because it is only within the last few decades that the sciences have come together to paint a picture of our existence allowing us to tie together the threads of previous efforts to achieve a rational and coherent view of the spiritual basis of our Universe. The previous threads arise from two theories long thought to be at odds: Pantheism and Deism. Pantheists, in general, equate our Universe itself with "God," proposing that there is nothing more to it -- a view that was particularly defensible prior to the discovery of the Big Bang and other phenomena pointing to a moment of initiation for our Universe. Deists, in general, believe that our Universe was designed and created by a god-equivalent being -- sometimes titled the Deus, or the Creator, or the Motive Force, to distinguish it from more primitive god-concepts -- with such being setting forth a clockwork Universe, capable of developing without the ham-handed interference indicative of a less competent Creator. Deists do not depend on the obviously flawed mechanism of revelation to take their Cosmic bearings, but instead rely on a rational and logical examination of the Universe to discern its source and purpose.
And yet, both Pantheism and Deism are insufficient; Pantheism can not explain how we came to be here or why we exist in a Universe with the peculiar capacities that ours exhibits, in particular the simple form of complexity that it engenders; nor has it much insight to offer as to our purpose of existence or our moral dimensions. Deism can explain how we came to exist but can provide no reason why an entity capable of creating such a Universe as ours would be compelled to do so, nor why such an entity would appear to abandon the Universe that it had just fashioned with such care for the details of its energetic constants. And so neither Pantheism nor Deism offers a complete solution by itself. But interposed under the light of modern science, they can be brought together to offer precisely that solution.
https://sites.google.com/site/pandeists/

 

[Rad3k]

This pandeism is an interesting concept, I have thought of something similar myself. But still, it doesn't solve the chicken and egg problem. If we don't accept that the universe doesn't need a sentient creator (even a creator that just transforms itself into it), then why accept that creator didn't need to be created by someone too?

Actually, I have a sort of philosophy of my own, though it doesn't involve deities, or at least doesn't explicitly mention them. But there's one problem - if I tried to express it in words, then probably only I would understand them correctly. Or maybe others that have reached the same conclusions on their own, but it wouldn't make much sense to anyone else. This is why I am ignostic. Words don't really mean much. Actually, the word "God" is only one of the many. A more basic example is "to exist", and it's much more limiting than "God". How can we know if we agree on anything if we don't know if our notions of existence are compatible?

 

[RaptorWizard]

Rad3k even if nobody fully understands your theory you should at least present it.

You could learn something new yourself just by expressing it to synthesize your knowledge.

I would sure be interested and even if I don't get the full picture catching even a glimpse would work.

 

[Aesthete]

A mixture of Ignosticism, Henotheism, and a variety of Transtheism. I don't like putting things into classes so simply, but it will do to answer the question.

 

[Rad3k]

Rad3k even if nobody fully understands your theory you should at least present it.

You could learn something new yourself just by expressing it to synthesize your knowledge.

I would sure be interested and even if I don't get the full picture catching even a glimpse would work.

Ok, I'll try to make it as easy to understand as I can.

The existence needs sorting out first, so here it is: First, let's assume an objective, "global" notion of existence. It's simple - everything exists. No matter how hard you try, you won't come up with something that doesn't exist, because there's simply no such a thing. As part of this "everything", there are infinitely many universes containing everything you can imagine and more. It may help to imagine that these universes exist in the same way as numbers exist - together they form a sort of continuum. Our universe (well, that's not technically correct, but I'll explain later) is there too.

That notion of existence was precise (sort of) but not useful - it doesn't really say anything about anything. So now let's assume a subjective one - what exists for me. I do exist, obviously Everything that I can experience also exists in some way or another. Whether what I experience is "real", is a creation of my imagination, or whatever else, is irrelevant as long as there's no way of telling these scenarios apart. There are also infinitely many universes that are identical from my perspective (including some in which everything I don't see turns pink), and differ only in what is unknown to me. So either I'm in one of them, but have no way to know which one it is, or I'm actually in all of them. And, like previously, there's really no difference. The only things meaningful to me are the things that I experience. Together, these experiences form my consciousness and define me.

If a canvas painted all black symbolized everything (in the objective sense) and a blank canvas symbolized nothing, my consciousness would be some shape. A shape carries more meaning than a single-colored (whether black or white) plane. If my consciousness was to expand indefinitely, it could at some point contain everything. And then it would be almost the same as if it contained nothing.

It's still not all, but I'm too tired to continue now.

 

[RaptorWizard]

If everything exists, then everything we are experiencing must have a meaningful reality of its own, and perhaps there aren't even absolutes, because if nothing can be everything, then we would have no universal measurements we could all agree upon, hence the stucture of our thoughts would be even greater than the structures of empiricism, philosophy becoming the next step we take in the chain after science carries us only so far, the question of consciousness being perhaps the greatest mystery of being, as without it, nothing would exist.

Yes, I think you were right, I didn't understand your theory that well, but at least I comprehend little bits and pieces of it, shown in my responce.

Anyway thanks for sharing your theory [MENTION=6752]Rad3k[/MENTION] and if you want, feel free to expand upon it anytime you wish.

 

[Sniffles]

There is no God but God.

 

[Nicodemus]

There is no God but God.

"There is no god but God" would have persuaded me. Unfortunate.

 

[tinker683]

Atheist with Taoist leanings

 

[Isis]

monotheist
If I weren't, I would be a wild child. It tames me. Calms me. And leaves me with only one fear- and that is the fear of God.