Who Is God?

[Dark Matter]

The relation between the part and the whole, between creature and Creator, is a living experience, a dynamic religious faith, which is not subject to precise definition. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. That is why it is almost impossible to talk about religion to non-religious person: they always want to reduce religion to images frozen in time. (Just ask Spectrum.)

[Spectrum]

The relation between the part and the whole, between creature and Creator, is a living experience, a dynamic religious faith, which is not subject to precise definition. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. That is why it is almost impossible to talk about religion to non-religious person: they always want to reduce religion to images frozen in time. (Just ask Spectrum.)

I have always reduce religion to the existential crisis within the psyche which is psychological.

A theist can search [for empirical evidence] or argue [rationalize] till the cow comes home, s/he will never ever to prove the existence of a real God. This is because the idea of God is an impossibility to be real within an empirical-rational reality.

What is real is the idea of God arise from psychological factors in the brain/mind and can only be explained and resolved psychologically.

The Eastern religions [e.g. Buddhism,Jainism, etc.] has been resolving the existential crisis psychologically since thousands of years ago with any negative baggage in its teachings.

Theists on the other hand focus on claiming a real God exists to facilitate feeling secure but that bring along terrible evils and violence by SOME believers.
To prevent or eliminate the terrible evils, theists need to divert their attention from the idea of god to resolve their personal existential crisis within to an effective psychological approach rather than clinging to a non-existent God.

[Sy Borg]

To start, I'll challenge you: If you don't know of real and fundamental qualities of "God" that are not in "universe" aside from anthropomorphism, then why claim God exists at all?

Linguistic convenience. Many theists share the same concern and even go so far as to say God does not exist — at least in the usual sense. Rather, they say, God is the ground of existence and therefore cannot be said to either exist or not exist.

If the first cause is pushed from, say, expansion in the quantum foam to an entity or force that drove that expansion, we just shift the origins one step to something that can't be tested, not least because the notion is conceptual rather than ontic.

A second question: if the answer to the above is based on subjective thoughts, feelings, sensations etc, how do you know that it's not just subjective effects due to vagaries of the brain, maybe a lucky dopamine flooding of the brain? Is a brain flooded with dopamine during a meditation or spontaneous peak experience experiencing an enhanced and more true version of reality, perhaps released from the binds and distortions of fear, worry and guilt, or is it an illusory sense of wellbeing?

N/A

Why? I would have thought that internal experience would be the only reason to believe. Does this mean your belief is based only on the perceived logic that God/whatever you call it must exist?

When we consider why rules exist, we need to consider the alternatives. Reality is going to basically do two things - it's either going to operate entirely chaotically or not. However, complete chaos is unsustainable. Simply based on probability, order must emerge from chaos. Once a single area of a chaotic field concentrates to a certain point it becomes more durable than other areas.

Why? Because the rules to order say so? Come on. What kind of logic is that?

As stated, these things can happen via probability. Do anything enough times and variant things happen. Via probability some emergences from a chaotic field must logically be more persistent and durable than others. From there, it can all naturally flow on. The persistent keep on persisting at the expense of the less durable.

Do that enough and you have today's universe - a collection of some of the most durable things that have ever existed. In a chaotic and cooling field, like the universe, the effects of concentrated and durable areas are more pronounced due to reduced activity.

Why is there something rather than nothing? That is, what is “stuff” grounded in?
Why are there rules to order?

The last question is to my mind explained by the above - it would be impossible for order not to emerge from chaos once enough cooling occurs.

The first two questions, however, strike me as closing in on the nitty gritty and I have no satisfactory answer for them. Why is there something rather than nothing? It appears that "nothing" is purely a relative concept, that due to the tremendous energy at the smallest known scales of reality, what we think of as nothingness is simply a zone of relatively low energy based on a threshold determined by senses and sensory tech.

Why is that so? Pass :)

Why must the creator be conscious? Stromatolites, and ancient colonial microscopic organism, created structures near shorelines, not to mention new Stromatolites. The organisms didn't know what they were doing but the physics inherent in their metabolisms brought their creations to bear.

Because we are conscious and non-locality is a fact of nature. That is the same as saying self-consciousness is in essence communal consciousness: part and whole, creature and creator.

That wouldn't seem to do us much good in terms of afterlife should be fall off the perch. The relations with "larger consciousness" is abstract, divorced from the senses.

It's not lost on me that, if I died, pretty well every useful or deep thought I had would still be thought by other people at some point. This is because we humans largely operate from the same bases. As our collective knowledge (and communication methods) improve, after a number of new facts come to light there can be certain logical inferences to be made from those newly-understood circumstances.

So our consciousness does seem to be, as you suggest, communal. I have previously claimed that our individuality - the thing we so value and are biologically programmed to feel utter dread at losing - is like the tip of an iceberg. My mind largely consists of the collective minds of various cultures, and then of collective humanity, and then a general way of experiencing that all mammals share, and chordates, and then animals, then life, of one's regions, the Earth, the solar system, etc right through to the commonalities shared by all things made of matter. Each ever more fundamental grouping logically confers a larger level of commonality. I visualise the rough mapping of this as as a Maslow style pyramid, with individuality at the top and matter (dark matter?) at the bottom. In short, it seems that only a little bit of you "you" is "you" :)

If, for instance, we had been raised by wolves, our consciousnesses would be very different; the conditioning of our minds by the community to be concordant with that community is profound. They hae been conditioned by the environment.

Religion seems to be largely about networking and, amongst all the socialising, politicking and bonding against common enemies in lieu of more weighty common interests, the original transcendent ideas that started the religion in the first place are lost.

Religion functions on many levels.

As I said largely. Perhaps we could construct a religious motivations pyramid model, with socialising and networking at the bottom and deep thinking inquiry at the apex?

[Dark Matter]

A parable:

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark. (G. K. Chesterton)

If the first cause is pushed from, say, expansion in the quantum foam to an entity or force that drove that expansion, we just shift the origins one step to something that can't be tested, not least because the notion is conceptual rather than ontic.

Big “if.” Too bad I didn’t say or even imply such an entity or force.

Why? I would have thought that internal experience would be the only reason to believe. Does this mean your belief is based only on the perceived logic that God/whatever you call it must exist?

Why must it be one or the other? I thought I made it clear that religion encompasses the entire self.

As stated, these things can happen via probability. Do anything enough times and variant things happen. Via probability some emergences from a chaotic field must logically be more persistent and durable than others. From there, it can all naturally flow on. The persistent keep on persisting at the expense of the less durable.

Paul Davies calls that kind explanation “chance in the gaps.” It’s intellectually dishonest honest to criticize “God in the gaps” only to posit “chance in the gaps” as an argument.

The last question is to my mind explained by the above - it would be impossible for order not to emerge from chaos once enough cooling occurs.

Well, so much for the second of thermodynamics.

The first two questions, however, strike me as closing in on the nitty gritty and I have no satisfactory answer for them.

That’s the point. (See the parable.)

That wouldn't seem to do us much good in terms of afterlife should be fall off the perch. The relations with "larger consciousness" is abstract, divorced from the senses.

From the physical senses, yes, but not the spirit.

As I said largely. Perhaps we could construct a religious motivations pyramid model, with socialising and networking at the bottom and deep thinking inquiry at the apex?

Different people have different reasons for attacking the lightpost.

[Sy Borg]

If the first cause is pushed from, say, expansion in the quantum foam to an entity or force that drove that expansion, we just shift the origins one step to something that can't be tested, not least because the notion is conceptual rather than ontic.

Big “if.” Too bad I didn’t say or even imply such an entity or force.

Then you had better start sharing the load here - your lightpost analogy provided no clarity. You seem conversant on what God is not but not about what it is. You provide no clarity so far as to what god is, only what god is not, and so I am making all the effort. In lieu of your lack of clarity, my above comment stands without valid refutation and still requires a valid response.

As stated, these things can happen via probability. Do anything enough times and variant things happen. Via probability some emergences from a chaotic field must logically be more persistent and durable than others. From there, it can all naturally flow on. The persistent keep on persisting at the expense of the less durable.

Paul Davies calls that kind explanation “chance in the gaps.” It’s intellectually dishonest honest to criticize “God in the gaps” only to posit “chance in the gaps” as an argument.

God of the gaps is the result of science continually disproving prior notions of God. There is no "chance of the gaps" because there is no gap to fill - nothing in science has been disproved by theists.

Your response was completely invalid and failed to respond to the logic itself at all. Thus, again, there is no valid rebuttal and the idea stands as most correct and uncontested here at this stage.

The last question is to my mind explained by the above - it would be impossible for order not to emerge from chaos once enough cooling occurs.

Well, so much for the second of thermodynamics.

Order emerging in chaos has nothing to do with the second law.

That wouldn't seem to do us much good in terms of afterlife should be fall off the perch. The relations with "larger consciousness" is abstract, divorced from the senses.

From the physical senses, yes, but not the spirit.

What is the spirit in you in lieu of physical senses? Not much, seemingly, maybe nothing at all?

As you know I am agnostic. In speaking with you I'd hoped to gain more insight into theism beyond the clichés, but your replies are suggesting to me that modern theism is about rhetoric and lacks a substantial way of explaining or justifying itself.

As things stand, I cannot understand at all what this "God" is that you believe in or why you would believe in something on the basis of no evidence. I cannot see your basis for believing nor what it is you believe in. Why believe in something you don't know anything about? If you claim that you do know something about your deity, what is it that you know about it?

[Dark Matter]

Then you had better start sharing the load here - your lightpost analogy provided no clarity. You seem conversant on what God is not but not about what it is. You provide no clarity so far as to what god is, only what god is not, and so I am making all the effort. In lieu of your lack of clarity, my above comment stands without valid refutation and still requires a valid response.

You must be having an off-day, Greta. I have repeatedly said that while we can know is, we cannot know

what

God is, though we can make some logical inferences and deduce something of his nature by studying nature.

God of the gaps is the result of science continually disproving prior notions of God. There is no "chance of the gaps" because there is no gap to fill - nothing in science has been disproved by theists.

Your response was completely invalid and failed to respond to the logic itself at all. Thus, again, there is no valid rebuttal and the idea stands as most correct and uncontested here at this stage.

Tsk, tsk. You know as well as I do that theologians dislike gap arguments. It was a physicist who coined the term “chance in the gaps.” Once you introduce infinity and probability into your thesis, then anything goes — including God (unless, of course, you invoke special pleading).

Order emerging in chaos has nothing to do with the second law.

Oh, really? Then why, according to cosmologists, did complexity come at the cost of order and simplicity?

What is the spirit in you in lieu of physical senses? Not much, seemingly, maybe nothing at all?

As you know I am agnostic. In speaking with you I'd hoped to gain more insight into theism beyond the clichés, but your replies are suggesting to me that modern theism is about rhetoric and lacks a substantial way of explaining or justifying itself.

As things stand, I cannot understand at all what this "God" is that you believe in or why you would believe in something on the basis of no evidence. I cannot see your basis for believing nor what it is you believe in. Why believe in something you don't know anything about? If you claim that you do know something about your deity, what is it that you know about it?

You claim to be an agnostic, but you post like a naturalist.

[Sy Borg]

God of the gaps is the result of science continually disproving prior notions of God. There is no "chance of the gaps" because there is no gap to fill - nothing in science has been disproved by theists.

Your response was completely invalid and failed to respond to the logic itself at all. Thus, again, there is no valid rebuttal and the idea stands as most correct and uncontested here at this stage.

Tsk, tsk. You know as well as I do that theologians dislike gap arguments. It was a physicist who coined the term “chance in the gaps.” Once you introduce infinity and probability into your thesis, then anything goes — including God (unless, of course, you invoke special pleading).

It's not special pleading to point out the obvious - that some degree of order must eventually spontaneously emerge from chaos. So, if you throw six dice enough you will eventually must throw all 1s, all 2s, all 3s etc. 123456, 654321, etc.

By the same token, when different chemicals are in different conditions, they will react differently. Some by sheer probability must logically be more persistent and robust than others - it would be odd if everything was equally durable or ephemeral, wouldn't it?

Some things must be more systematised than others, and so forth. In time, persistent forms logically continue more than relatively ephemeral forms. Thus, ever more persistent entities emerged - stars, planets and galaxies. On a smaller scale the same dynamics were playing out on the surface of this planet - different properties emerged based on probabilities and the limits of the physics.

:lol: Order emerging in chaos has nothing to do with the second law.

Oh, really? Then why, according to cosmologists, did complexity come at the cost of order and simplicity?

Yes, but the entropy saved by a self regenerating entity like a star or organism is inflicted on the environment. There is therefore never a violation of the second law in the development of relative order within relative chaos.

What is the spirit in you in lieu of physical senses? Not much, seemingly, maybe nothing at all?

As you know I am agnostic. In speaking with you I'd hoped to gain more insight into theism beyond the clichés, but your replies are suggesting to me that modern theism is about rhetoric and lacks a substantial way of explaining or justifying itself.

As things stand, I cannot understand at all what this "God" is that you believe in or why you would believe in something on the basis of no evidence. I cannot see your basis for believing nor what it is you believe in. Why believe in something you don't know anything about? If you claim that you do know something about your deity, what is it that you know about it?

You claim to be an agnostic, but you post like a naturalist.

One cannot be a naturalist and an agnostic? It depends on the kind of god that I am agnostic to. Here, I can happily share my notions, which entirely centre around the Omega Point concept, which is seemingly about the only way to avoid violation of natural law, or at least to allow it.

The big questions about "naturalistic gods" centres on two main questions? The first is how many universes have there been? Is this the first, the hundredth, the millionth or quadrillionth? The next is how far can life evolve to or beyond in the universe's lifetime? Maybe galaxies act as God-making machines, with many major lifebearing galaxies producing extraordinary beings many billions of years more advanced than us. They may well be as gods, maybe even capable of surviving their universe and acting as prime movers of new universes to make them more fertile?

It's theoretically possible so I'm agnostic. If there is some weird background extra-dimensional omnipresent deity as you seem to envisage, the most logical and naturalistic explanation would be that it developed from earlier universes.

I've been candid so it's your turn to answer my questions above, to which you only replied with a claim that I'm a naturalist. Play fair - I've been generous enough in sharing my conceptions. Are you interested in reciprocating?

[Dark Matter]

No, not really. You’re mind is closed.

[Sy Borg]

DM, I don't know how you can say my mind is closed with a straight face, given the dismissive way you have dealt with my attempts to engage. I have tried to come to you but you have not budged a step - no openness or compromise, as is your prerogative, but it means you can't accuse others of being closed.

I think I understand why you are doing this and will leave you to it.

However, I leave you with this: I've long tried to engage the most sophisticated theists I could find on these forums to better understand their perspectives, but I only ever get evasion and defeatism as to any chance of gaining any kind of mutual understanding, and an odd dislike for science, as if it was their enemy rather than just accumulated observations and knowledge. This, more than anything, leads me ever closer to atheism and away from belief.

Why would that be? Because I would expect those imbued with a deeper connection reality to be especially reasonable, personable, patient, kind, understanding, friendly, open and eloquent, and certainly would not decline a chance to share and compare ideas and conceptions. This is not what I experience when speaking with theists online; I always end up being accused of being deficient in some way.

Thus, whatever theists on these forums seem to be gaining from their beliefs, it's not making them a better person than me. I would expect more qualities and values associated with Jesus rather than more or less the same temperament as any old Joe or Josephine.

[Dark Matter]

I have repeatedly said that we can know that God is but not what God is. That is a very common theistic position and not just mine. Then you complained that I was being evasive by refusing to talk about what God is. I repeatedly said that God is above being and non-being -- again a very common theistic assertion -- and you said that I simply moved the goalposts to a more basic entity or energy. I said repeatedly that God is the ground of all being, and you constantly ignored that and referred to chaos and probability (being) in a rather peculiar and schizophrenic way as being the cause of the universe.

No, Greta. Your mind is as closed as any atheist I've encountered. I'm sorry for being blunt, I suspect that like most agnostics, you identify as an agnostic because it makes you feel better about yourself.

[Dark Matter]

Greta:

You ask how I can believe in something for which there is no evidence, but the nature of evidence is such that it requires boundaries, e.g., this but not that, but an absolute has no boundaries by definition. I have repeatedly said that religion is not so much about beliefs, which are conceptual interpretations of personal value-experience, but you elect to ignore that and reduce God to a philosophical postulate.

Sorry, but talking past each other accomplishes nothing.

[Dark Matter]

From nothing, nothing comes. To say nothing is unstable is only to say something is unstable. In the end, some kind of symmetry-breaking impetus or will must be postulated prior to any ''scientific” explanation of the universe.

Atheists and agnostics cringe at the prospect of having to acknowledge as real anything that cannot be understood in scientific terms. When pressed, they say “I don't know” and come to a full stop, as though going no further than what reason alone can take them is some kind of virtue. But like every other decision in life, there are consequences. Without a “philosophy of light” there is only dark.

[Eduk]

The universe is real, I believe, and isn't understood in scientific terms. It's possible that it is impossible to understand the universe in scientific terms. Indeed I'd say it was likely that the universe cannot be understood by a human.
I find Greta's version of a possible God not to be close to a classic Christian style God or DM's version. It might pass as a Zeus style God, but that's not that impressive.
DM's version of God seems to be the anti god to me. Not physical. Not knowable. Not caused. Not not not etc. For me to try to grasp DMs God I merely have to try to imagine a God like being and then I know it's not that.

[Fanman]

DM,

Atheists and agnostics cringe at the prospect of having to acknowledge as real anything that cannot be understood in scientific terms. When pressed, they say “I don't know” and come to a full stop, as though going no further than what reason alone can take them is some kind of virtue. But like every other decision in life, there are consequences. Without a “philosophy of light” there is only dark.

I haven't been an agnostic for very long, but in my experience this is not an accurate description of the agnostic position. The reason that I say “I don't know” is simply because I don't. Why should I believe either way when I don't perceive any compelling evidence for God, but am not sure that God doesn't exist? If something cannot be proven or disproved then saying “I don't know” is not unreasonable or illogical. I see no “virtue” in thinking within the spectrum of what I perceive as reason, I just tend to since becoming agnostic – I don't see why I should arrive at a conclusion through speculation of what could be, but what I don't know is. Whether a philosophy is “dark” or “light” is clearly a matter of perspective, if one thinks in those terms. It is a trademark of fundamentalists to believe that they are of the “light” and everyone else (who doesn't agree with or conform to their way of thinking) is of the “dark”.

[Dark Matter]

DM's version of God seems to be the anti god to me. Not physical. Not knowable. Not caused. Not not not etc. For me to try to grasp DMs God I merely have to try to imagine a God like being and then I know it's not that.

That's good, very good. It means I'm getting through. It's called apophatic theology, also known as negative theology or via negativa.