What is godness?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Magicpotion
New Trial Member
Posts: 13
Joined: July 1st, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: What is godness?

Post by Magicpotion »

I think what the term "God" really points to is that which "is". The fact that there is "something" rather than nothing; the fact that you "are"; that you "have being"; that the universe "is" and that we know this because we are aware of it and are living through it, experiencing it.

You can call it what you want "Life", "the Universe", "God", or whatever other term makes the most sense to you. It's all pointing to the fact that existence exists; that life is here and happening in this moment spontaneously and that we are all subjects passing through this larger thing called 'objective reality'.

To be alive as anything at all is biggest mystery and some people believe that the only explanation to this could be "God". However, the term "God" is grossly misconceptualized these days. Many people take it to be something like "a magical man in the sky" or some similar definition that is a variation on what historic religions/biblical texts would have them believe; but this is not what is actually trying to be elucidated.

I agree with Joseph Campbell - "God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought". If I could ask you a question: Can you remember what you were like before you were born? Do you know what will happen to you when you die? No, it's a mystery. And it is mysterious to every single one of us. Life is a very mysterious phenomenon. If you can adopt a perspective that life is gifted to you ("you" being the awareness or perceiver that is not your body or mind) from your birth, then you realize that the human experience is fundamentally transcendent.

When religious people speak of "God", it's quite similar to when atheists refer to their own experience of "the Universe". They both refer to the larger sphere of reference where the scope of perspective that must be adopted is too grand to fathom. You cannot visualize infinity or something so huge that it might as well be infinite and because it cannot be conceived of intellectually, it must be accepted on faith. And even atheists put their faith in something (whether they like to admit it or not), whether it's in science/rationality, the universe, their own living experience or something else that they deem to be transcendent/supreme.

When we realize our statistical insignificance in comparison to the rest of the Universe/Life/God, we can have a direct insight into an ego-less state and be truly humbled. Buddhist religions call this "satori" or "kensho". I personally believe that a lot of atheists deny the notion of God just to make their own experience of life more "real" and live religiously if that makes sense? Not giving weight to the idea of God lets them experientially live in a state of awareness that is free, autonomous and not determined by "divine will" and this brings them closer to transcendence.

To answer the original question, I think that 'Godness' is basically the biggest umbrella term there is and the only things that might be synonymous with it are similarly vague, all-encompassing notions like 'Is-ness', 'Existence', 'Happening' and maybe notions like 'Presence', 'Being', 'Am-ness', 'Awareness', 'Experience' also have their place too. I think it's closest definition is "that which is" or "that which exists" but 'Godness' could also be defined as "everything that ever is, ever was and ever will be, for all of time, in every way".
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: What is godness?

Post by Spectrum »

Count Lucanor wrote:That expression: "has to be", takes us to the distinction I described before. As a desired stated of the concept, it cannot express a fact, what actually is conceived by many. I see as a fact that a very tiny minority conforms to this type of monotheism, but the rest see their gods as fatherly figures or kings, with whom they talk to or have some sort of personal relationship, which is not compatible with the absolute god you describe.
I see what you are trying to say but that is not my point.

As I had been saying all these fatherly figures or kings, personal gods are merely the forms of an essence of godness, i.e. the ontological God or absolutely perfect Being. What I am trying to say is, those who engage with the forms are actually ignorant of the essence or substance of godness.
  • Example:
    Those who are scientifically ignorant will think pencil lead, graphite, charcoal, coal, diamonds are all different materials by themselves. The fact is from the perspective of substance at the atomic level, these forms are all the same, i.e. all has the same substance i.e. pure carbon.
    It is the same with the different forms of H2O, i.e. water, steam, clouds, mist, ice, snow, which has the same substance of H2O.
As with the above examples, there are many forms of godness, e.g. fatherly figures or kings, personal gods, deities, polytheism but monotheism is the ultimate essence of these forms of godness.

In terms of forms, a polytheist will obviously not agree nor see any similarities with monotheism on the surface. But below the surface of the forms, the difference is reconcilable to monotheism from the psychological perspective.
A polytheist when made aware of the argument will logically and rationally agree with a monotheistic ontological God eventually. This is why the beliefs of the majority [6+ billion humans] has evolved from anthropomorphic & polytheistic to a monotheistic God.

In the psychological perspective, there are various forms but they all are reducible to one substance psychological drive for godness emerging from an existential crisis.

It is this psychological substance/basis of godness that will ultimately drive all forms of godness in terms of beliefs to an ontological God.
Analogically with the above example, what is this psychological substance/basis to godness, is H2O to all its forms water, steam, clouds, mist, ice, and snow.

Now that the ultimate of godness is reduced to a monotheistic God or absolutely perfect God, we can prove an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility. End of Story for any reality for godness.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=15155

This will leave us with only the real psychological drive for godness and since this is now confined to human psychology there is a practical and realistic way to resolve the question of godness and all its related negative baggages. This is a possibility because since thousands of years ago various Eastern and other spiritual groups has been adopting this approach, e.g. Buddhism.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: What is godness?

Post by Dark Matter »

Magicpotion wrote:I think what the term "God" really points to is that which "is". The fact that there is "something" rather than nothing; the fact that you "are"; that you "have being"; that the universe "is" and that we know this because we are aware of it and are living through it, experiencing it.

You can call it what you want "Life", "the Universe", "God", or whatever other term makes the most sense to you. It's all pointing to the fact that existence exists; that life is here and happening in this moment spontaneously and that we are all subjects passing through this larger thing called 'objective reality'.

To be alive as anything at all is biggest mystery and some people believe that the only explanation to this could be "God". However, the term "God" is grossly misconceptualized these days. Many people take it to be something like "a magical man in the sky" or some similar definition that is a variation on what historic religions/biblical texts would have them believe; but this is not what is actually trying to be elucidated.

I agree with Joseph Campbell - "God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought". If I could ask you a question: Can you remember what you were like before you were born? Do you know what will happen to you when you die? No, it's a mystery. And it is mysterious to every single one of us. Life is a very mysterious phenomenon. If you can adopt a perspective that life is gifted to you ("you" being the awareness or perceiver that is not your body or mind) from your birth, then you realize that the human experience is fundamentally transcendent.

When religious people speak of "God", it's quite similar to when atheists refer to their own experience of "the Universe". They both refer to the larger sphere of reference where the scope of perspective that must be adopted is too grand to fathom. You cannot visualize infinity or something so huge that it might as well be infinite and because it cannot be conceived of intellectually, it must be accepted on faith. And even atheists put their faith in something (whether they like to admit it or not), whether it's in science/rationality, the universe, their own living experience or something else that they deem to be transcendent/supreme.

When we realize our statistical insignificance in comparison to the rest of the Universe/Life/God, we can have a direct insight into an ego-less state and be truly humbled. Buddhist religions call this "satori" or "kensho". I personally believe that a lot of atheists deny the notion of God just to make their own experience of life more "real" and live religiously if that makes sense? Not giving weight to the idea of God lets them experientially live in a state of awareness that is free, autonomous and not determined by "divine will" and this brings them closer to transcendence.

To answer the original question, I think that 'Godness' is basically the biggest umbrella term there is and the only things that might be synonymous with it are similarly vague, all-encompassing notions like 'Is-ness', 'Existence', 'Happening' and maybe notions like 'Presence', 'Being', 'Am-ness', 'Awareness', 'Experience' also have their place too. I think it's closest definition is "that which is" or "that which exists" but 'Godness' could also be defined as "everything that ever is, ever was and ever will be, for all of time, in every way".
Do you think that what gives rise to things that have existence (or being) is ontologically distinct from those contingent existents? Do you think that the answer to why there is something rather than nothing is within the purview of science?

-- Updated October 30th, 2017, 11:24 pm to add the following --
Now that the ultimate of godness is reduced to a monotheistic God or absolutely perfect God, we can prove an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility. End of Story for any reality for godness.
What do you mean by "perfection"? I'll bet it's not the same thing as what Aquinas, let's say, means.
User avatar
Magicpotion
New Trial Member
Posts: 13
Joined: July 1st, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: What is godness?

Post by Magicpotion »

Dark Matter wrote:Do you think that what gives rise to things that have existence (or being) is ontologically distinct from those contingent existents?
No, I think the existents are extensions of that which has given rise to them. Think about the "spark" or "life force" that animates you and comprises your biological machinery. What is it that keeps your heart beating? What makes you blink and breathe unconsciously every second? You might call this "nature" or "the unconscious mind" or you might call it "divinity". The fact that it functions independently of our consciousness is what is really intriguing.
Dark Matter wrote:Do you think that the answer to why there is something rather than nothing is within the purview of science?
It's in the purview of philosophy but I'm not sure a scientific experiment could be conducted on such an abstract question. Maybe in the future when there is more acknowledgement and consensus of metaphysical phenomena. I've always thought that the first step in the scientific method (hypothesis) is basically what philosophy is anyway? Just that you can't test or measure the majority of philosophical questions because they are qualitative or intangible.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: What is godness?

Post by Spectrum »

Dark Matter wrote:
Now that the ultimate of godness is reduced to a monotheistic God or absolutely perfect God, we can prove an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility. End of Story for any reality for godness.
What do you mean by "perfection"? I'll bet it's not the same thing as what Aquinas, let's say, means.
Note my explanation of 'absolute perfection' in contrast to 'relative perfection' in the OP.

I noted Aquinas has various views of perfection but
I don't believe Aquinas will accept any God is that has any blemish, i.e. imperfect or is inferior in perfection to another God.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is godness?

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum -
In terms of forms, a polytheist will obviously not agree nor see any similarities with monotheism on the surface. But below the surface of the forms, the difference is reconcilable to monotheism from the psychological perspective.
A polytheist when made aware of the argument will logically and rationally agree with a monotheistic ontological God eventually. This is why the beliefs of the majority [6+ billion humans] has evolved from anthropomorphic & polytheistic to a monotheistic God.
We could just as well say that monotheism has evolved into polytheism too. Like I've said if you look to the most well known and respected figures of religious institutions they veer more and more toward accepting different perspectives, thus admitting in some capacity to a polytheistic view, or rather a multifaceted view of "goodness" existing differently for different peoples. Hinduism, and many other (if not all polytheisms?) exist under ONE idea, only it is separately dealt with. Christianity merely renames its hierarchy of 'deities' as things such as "peace", "love", "sacrifice", "virtue", "charity", etc.,. In polytheistic representations all of these attributes are clearly seen spread across different functioning human emotions. For a common example we have Kali as the destroyer, representing the use of destruction as well as its dangers. Such a idea would be more accessible to those more inclined to take on challenges in life and risk things. Through Kali they would come to understand the gamble they take the dangers as well as the gains. Further more they would understand this under the duress of the idea of Brahma which is a universal force (but essentially a monotheistic entity displaced beyond human reasoning about which items such as "Kali", "Thor" or "Mithras" gravitate.
AKA badgerjelly
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: What is godness?

Post by Dark Matter »

Hinduism is not polytheistic. Brahman is the universal principle. Brahma is the creator God -- not the same.

Also, I was right: Spectrum hasn't clue about what is meant by "perfection."

-- Updated October 31st, 2017, 1:41 am to add the following --

In fact, he hasn't a clue about what classical theism means by "God."
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is godness?

Post by Burning ghost »

Dark Matter wrote:Hinduism is not polytheistic. Brahman is the universal principle. Brahma is the creator God -- not the same.

Also, I was right: Spectrum hasn't clue about what is meant by "perfection."

-- Updated October 31st, 2017, 1:41 am to add the following --

In fact, he hasn't a clue about what classical theism means by "God."
It is polytheistic. You are only partly correct. Hinduism is not a monotheism.

Also, it helps if you pay attention to the OP and what is being expressed by "godness". I may even ask why a theist is taking part in an atheists discussion (without finding it hilarious)?
AKA badgerjelly
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: What is godness?

Post by Dark Matter »

Oh, I do find it hilarious that someone would engage in deep discussion without knowing what they are talking about.

Hinduism includes a broad range of ideas, from atheistic to polytheistic to monistic pantheism, but basically, the thousands of different gods are different “faces” of the one Supreme Principle, Brahman.
As the Existent-Consciousnes, Reality has three self-determined aspects: Self, Soul and God the Lord. As Self it remains in the background of the process of self-manifestation of the Reality; as Soul it is the Conscious Being who sanctions the Creative adventure of the Consciousness-Force, and as the Lord it controls the process of the self-manifestation of the Reality.
Does that have a familiar ring? It’s the teachings of a very famous Hindu: Sri Aurobindo.

The question ‘what is godness?’ as well as Spectrum idea of perfection may be applicable to theistic personalism, but are laughable when applied to classical theism. Neither is it applicable to Brahman.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is godness?

Post by Burning ghost »

Go speak to someone who gives a **** then? We're just ignorant fools.
AKA badgerjelly
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: What is godness?

Post by Dark Matter »

Ever think that's how theists might feel?
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: What is godness?

Post by Georgeanna »

Burning ghost wrote:From History of Western Philosophy, part 1. From the Renaissance to Hume, Chapter 1 General Characteristics (p. 492-3) :
The authority of science , which is recognized by most philosophers of the modern epoch, is a very different thing from the authority of the Church, since it is intellectual, not governmental ...

...

So far, I have been speaking of theoretical science, which is an attempt to understand the world. Practical science, which is an attempt to change the world, has been important from the first, and continually increased in importance, until it has almost ousted theoretical science from men's thoughts ...

...

Emancipation from the authority of the Church led to the growth of individualism even to the point of anarchy.
Russell goes on to describe extreme subjectivism as a "form of madness" as much as extreme objectivism. It is this parallel I was referring to in what I have found myself. This also bleeds into politics and game theory, meaning there is a drive toward homeostasis. Liberalism and conservativism complement each other, just freedom does, freedom only understand the rule of certain laws, otherwise there is pure anarchy and no authority given objective value. Funnily enough out of anarchy authority, of some sort, will always rise.

We could also compare science and religion in terms of monotheism and polytheism. Science appears to be completely different, yet if you take a closer look perhaps you'd being willing to look at the authority of science being the methodology. As long as it works it will not be adjusted and resist adjustment. Also, in science we live in a polytheistic sense with numerous fields of investigation. The chemist will obviously see chemistry as most important, the physicist will say physics and the archeologist will see archeology as the most important of all the attributes of science. Within a polytheistic view people are more open to other positions and understand how they complement their own.

The "godness" is the factor about which they all gravitate. The authoritarian attitude is that which believes its method is the one true method, the only way to reach and understand "godness".

If you wish to follow spectrum on his views then you'd have to accept that humans need a lot more than simply food, heat, and water. Some things are essential to humans that may not appear so obvious. Humans need physical contact with other beings and they need to play, just as much as they need food and water.
I can and do accept the whole range of human requirements, even without following Spectrum.
I support Spectrum's views regarding the psychological underpinnings for any belief in an absolute perfect being. ( If I have understood correctly).
I previously mentioned any 'Godness' as a Pinnacle of Perfection as an Ideal, the highest standard which some wish to bow down before and emulate.

There are clearly more needs than the basics. Keeping the pinnacle in mind, and the song Venus ( superficial I know), the mountain top in Maslow's pyramid hierarchy of needs is self-actualization. ( later self-transcendence).
It refers to a human's potential - the 'power' to be the best one can be. And this ties up with the idea of small 'godness' or goodness with some quality of perfection. The process or becoming some kind of better being.

In philosophy, we might do this by reflection on what is good. Philosophy as a way of life. For example, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. The aim not perfection, as such, rather to allow an understanding of life to inform the way in which we live.

-- Updated October 31st, 2017, 9:10 am to add the following --
Spectrum wrote:
Dark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


What do you mean by "perfection"? I'll bet it's not the same thing as what Aquinas, let's say, means.
Note my explanation of 'absolute perfection' in contrast to 'relative perfection' in the OP.

I noted Aquinas has various views of perfection but
I don't believe Aquinas will accept any God is that has any blemish, i.e. imperfect or is inferior in perfection to another God.
Anselm in Cottingham's ' Western Philosophy: an Anthology' p 347

' What are you then, Lord God, you than whom nothing greater can be thought? What are you but the supreme being, the only being who exists through itself, and the one who has made all other things from nothing?...So can any good thing be lacking in the supreme good, the source of every good that exists?
You are therefore just, truthful, blessed and whatever is better to be than not to be; for it is better to be just than unjust, and better to be blessed than not.'

Qualities of 'Godness' here seem synonymous with those of small 'godness' or 'goodness'.
Humans may strive to be better by being or becoming just and truthful. And whatever is better to be than not to be. Plenty of scope here then. Not so sure about being blessed.

-- Updated October 31st, 2017, 9:54 am to add the following --
Dark Matter wrote:Oh, I do find it hilarious that someone would engage in deep discussion without knowing what they are talking about.

Hinduism includes a broad range of ideas, from atheistic to polytheistic to monistic pantheism, but basically, the thousands of different gods are different “faces” of the one Supreme Principle, Brahman.
As the Existent-Consciousnes, Reality has three self-determined aspects: Self, Soul and God the Lord. As Self it remains in the background of the process of self-manifestation of the Reality; as Soul it is the Conscious Being who sanctions the Creative adventure of the Consciousness-Force, and as the Lord it controls the process of the self-manifestation of the Reality.
Does that have a familiar ring? It’s the teachings of a very famous Hindu: Sri Aurobindo.

The question ‘what is godness?’ as well as Spectrum idea of perfection may be applicable to theistic personalism, but are laughable when applied to classical theism. Neither is it applicable to Brahman.
I prefer to engage with a topic I don't know anything about, and ask questions, all the better to further my knowledge and understanding. It is interesting to read, digest and offer views - there is no need for a deep knowledge of classical theism. This is philosophy of religion. Flexibility of thought rather than dead dogma.
I had never come across the term 'godness' before. And so begins an exploration.
Isn't that part of philosophy? Is that 'laughable' ?
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: What is godness?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Burning ghost wrote:Because mine is as monotheistic as theirs in all but name. It is a question of individuation in light of polytheism (or simply plurality.) So I would say mine and theirs are the points of movement toward the underlying concept.
Note that you had defined godness as the "exposure of potential", which does not point to an entity, but to a condition or process. It's not compatible with monotheism or polytheism. It wouldn't be compatible with pantheism either, so we can't really know where you stand.
Burning ghost wrote: Polytheism and monotheism only differ in dogmatism. Pretty much all polytheistic structures (I know of) have hierarchy, but lack omnipotence
I'm not sure about omnipotence being a constant in monotheism. The god of the Bible often needs the intervention of humans to accomplish things and even so his desired objectives are not always achieved.

About the analogy between monotheism/polytheism and science, it's a way to say that science is pluralistic and perhaps polytheistic religions can be tought to be that way. Other than that analogy, there's no relation between science and religion.

-- Updated October 31st, 2017, 8:40 am to add the following --
Magicpotion wrote:I think what the term "God" really points to is that which "is". The fact that there is "something" rather than nothing; the fact that you "are"; that you "have being"; that the universe "is" and that we know this because we are aware of it and are living through it, experiencing it.

You can call it what you want "Life", "the Universe", "God", or whatever other term makes the most sense to you. It's all pointing to the fact that existence exists; that life is here and happening in this moment spontaneously and that we are all subjects passing through this larger thing called 'objective reality'.

To be alive as anything at all is biggest mystery and some people believe that the only explanation to this could be "God". However, the term "God" is grossly misconceptualized these days. Many people take it to be something like "a magical man in the sky" or some similar definition that is a variation on what historic religions/biblical texts would have them believe; but this is not what is actually trying to be elucidated.

I agree with Joseph Campbell - "God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought". If I could ask you a question: Can you remember what you were like before you were born? Do you know what will happen to you when you die? No, it's a mystery. And it is mysterious to every single one of us. Life is a very mysterious phenomenon. If you can adopt a perspective that life is gifted to you ("you" being the awareness or perceiver that is not your body or mind) from your birth, then you realize that the human experience is fundamentally transcendent.

When religious people speak of "God", it's quite similar to when atheists refer to their own experience of "the Universe". They both refer to the larger sphere of reference where the scope of perspective that must be adopted is too grand to fathom. You cannot visualize infinity or something so huge that it might as well be infinite and because it cannot be conceived of intellectually, it must be accepted on faith. And even atheists put their faith in something (whether they like to admit it or not), whether it's in science/rationality, the universe, their own living experience or something else that they deem to be transcendent/supreme.

When we realize our statistical insignificance in comparison to the rest of the Universe/Life/God, we can have a direct insight into an ego-less state and be truly humbled. Buddhist religions call this "satori" or "kensho". I personally believe that a lot of atheists deny the notion of God just to make their own experience of life more "real" and live religiously if that makes sense? Not giving weight to the idea of God lets them experientially live in a state of awareness that is free, autonomous and not determined by "divine will" and this brings them closer to transcendence.

To answer the original question, I think that 'Godness' is basically the biggest umbrella term there is and the only things that might be synonymous with it are similarly vague, all-encompassing notions like 'Is-ness', 'Existence', 'Happening' and maybe notions like 'Presence', 'Being', 'Am-ness', 'Awareness', 'Experience' also have their place too. I think it's closest definition is "that which is" or "that which exists" but 'Godness' could also be defined as "everything that ever is, ever was and ever will be, for all of time, in every way".
Very interesting view, close to that of Spinoza (which I have always seen as being one step away from atheism). I could agree on god being a metaphor of nature or the universe as a whole, but I cannot agree that's what theists have meant all the time. If you read my provisional definition of godness, those are things that an atheist will not adhere to, no matter how metaphorically one looks at it.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is godness?

Post by Burning ghost »

Count -

Yes, there is a limitation. I can still see a connection depending on how you translate "entity". Much like a triangle is an "entity" in some respects. more simply put I could have used nature/nurture as an example. I doubt anyone with much sense today takes such a delineation all that seriously other than as a yard-stick for specific investigations. In that light I am talking about the combined potential of both, so no matter what we focus on there is a constant unobtainable "middle-ground" and the advent of investigation only seems to encapsulate it briefly. During that period we 'near' the point of conjunction. Probably a better way of expressing the mono/polytheism is to take them as a glass both half full and half empty. To mono it looks one way and to the poly the other. Neither are wrong, they just reside in a partial potential. (I guess you can see why I mentioned ying-yang. I admit to resorting to a kind of half-arsed Taoism here ...)

I don't want to veer off topic so I won't go into the social dynamics of science and religion as practiced compared to the theoretical ideas (in that respect science is certainly much more firmly grounded.) It was an analogy to show some of the polarity of human thought more than anything.

I would agree with you on the "Omnipotence" comment. I think this is for the same reasons I was targeted for my comments on Hinduism, that being that the traditions have taken on a certain cultural and social evolution. We can see even Buddhists resorting to framing their version of a "prophet" into the form of a deity to fit the mythological condition of other themes. I do certainly see a relationship between how science developed and how more monotheistic ideas were clung too.

note: Just in case you are not aware I am tilted reasonably heavily toward a Jungian outlook on the human condition and the idea of archetypal patterns across religious symbolism.
AKA badgerjelly
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: What is godness?

Post by Dark Matter »

Georgeanna wrote:.

I prefer to engage with a topic I don't know anything about, and ask questions, all the better to further my knowledge and understanding. It is interesting to read, digest and offer views - there is no need for a deep knowledge of classical theism. This is philosophy of religion. Flexibility of thought rather than dead dogma.
I had never come across the term 'godness' before. And so begins an exploration.
Isn't that part of philosophy? Is that 'laughable' ?
"Godness" is an acceptable word if used it the right context, as in describing lesser gods or "demiurges," but it is entirely inappropriate when used in a way that suggests that the ground of being -- that what must be in order for what is to be as it is -- is a being among other beings and can therefore be defined and talked about like your next door neighbor. Let me put it this way: why is there something rather than nothing? What is the cause or ultimate ground of the something that obviously exists? Is it a "godness" that can be reduced to a big man in the sky, a compound of describable parts? We can know that an Ultimate Ground exists (though some would deny even that), but what can we say about it? Not a damn thing. We can say what it is not and learn something from that, but that's it.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021