Who Is God?

[Sy Borg]

Why call it "God"? The semantics of the label always evoke a anthropomorphised entity to me and, in my observations, numerous others.

So what? What’s stopping you from getting rid of your presuppositions?

Why not "universe"?

Because the term “God” denotes something different, something more real, more fundamental.

Also, what observed events lead to God in the same way as observed events lead to the theory of gravity?

Intelligibility, for starters.

I think getting half the world to change their presuppositions is a bit much of an ask.

What are the more real and fundamental qualities of "God" that are not in "universe" aside from anthropomorphism?

I do not see intelligibility as being evidence of God, rather reality is patterned and brained animals can gain some understanding of what those patterns mean in a practical sense, with humans of course taking this dynamic to another level.

[Dark Matter]

I think getting half the world to change their presuppositions is a bit much of an ask.

Yup!

What are the more real and fundamental qualities of "God" that are not in "universe" aside from anthropomorphism?

Good question. Theists have been asking that for centuries.

I do not see intelligibility as being evidence of God, rather reality is patterned and brained animals can gain some understanding of what those patterns mean in a practical sense, with humans of course taking this dynamic to another level.

How do "patterned and brained animals" come about? Without pre-established rules, the only thing you get from chaos is chaos. Even your much vaunted fractals obey rules. Where do they come from? Why? The idea of multiple universe multiplies the problem multiple times.

[Spectrum]

Here are two radically different reviews of the same book. Both are written by atheists, but the one written by Jerry Coyne (the second) is all over the map. It leaves the reader wondering what book is being reviewed. It’s angry and confused. The author is probably frustrated because “Hart’s exceedingly rarified notion of God,” by the reviewer’s own admission, can’t be refuted. The reviewer also says that it’s a belief shared by almost no believers, which Hart points out early in the book is simply not true. Other points Coyne imagines himself(?) to be making are ... well ... asinine.

The one theology book all atheists really should read

From the above article;
https://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver ... hould-read

The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" – the technical term is "demiurge" – whose defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.

The above is the empirical-based God that is claimed to exists within the empirical sphere. Since such a God is empirically based it is empirically possible but not proven to exists empirically due to lack of scientific evidence.
Those who counter such a god has to be agnostic until there are scientific evidence to justify it. This is why Dawkins provided a 1/7 probability such a God can possibly exists.

Due to the limitation of the empirical-based God, advanced theologians move towards an ontological God which is claimed in the article as below;

Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of 'intelligent design', for example – for whom Hart reserves plenty of scorn – and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too. But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up this second version better than I can:

… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West,
God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time.
Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist.
God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

The above bolded are qualities of an ontological God, i.e. absolutely perfect thus totally unconditioned and absolutely everything that is.

But the point is an absolutely perfect God cannot be a possibility within an empirical-rational [scientific-philosophical] reality. The final point is there is no other mode of reality which is more realistic than the empirical-rational [scientific-philosophical] reality.

Therefore the God claimed by Hart above is an impossibility within an empirical-rational [scientific-philosophical] reality.

The only other reality that such an absolute perfect God is possible is only between the ears of theists, i.e. it is psychologically driven within the psyche.

[Dark Matter]

Spectrum:

I simply don’t care about what you have to say in regards to my posts.

[Eduk]

When I think of cause and effect I think the universe is logically impossible. Because there can be no uncaused cause and an infinity of causes also can't happen.
The conclusion I draw from this is not God is therefore uncaused. The conclusion I draw is that I don't understand the nature of existence

[Dark Matter]

When I think of cause and effect I think the universe is logically impossible. Because there can be no uncaused cause and an infinity of causes also can't happen.
The conclusion I draw from this is not God is therefore uncaused. The conclusion I draw is that I don't understand the nature of existence

Nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. Your love for truth is the affirmation of an absolute, of God. Here’s another review of Hart’s book:

A God against Materialism

[jerlands]

So what? What’s stopping you from getting rid of your presuppositions?

Because the term “God” denotes something different, something more real, more fundamental.

Intelligibility, for starters.

I think getting half the world to change their presuppositions is a bit much of an ask.

What are the more real and fundamental qualities of "God" that are not in "universe" aside from anthropomorphism?

I do not see intelligibility as being evidence of God, rather reality is patterned and brained animals can gain some understanding of what those patterns mean in a practical sense, with humans of course taking this dynamic to another level.

The concept of "God" puts man in a very real and different perspective than many religions. Man is not the creator but rather the created. That perspective changes many things about the way man thinks.

[Dark Matter]

The concept of "God" puts man in a very real and different perspective than many religions. Man is not the creator but rather the created. That perspective changes many things about the way man thinks.

Very true. As one book puts it: "After all, it is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average man unless it becomes emotionally activated. But the activation of religion is superemotional, unifying the entire human experience on transcendent levels through contact with, and release of, spiritual energies in the mortal life."

[jerlands]

The concept of "God" puts man in a very real and different perspective than many religions. Man is not the creator but rather the created. That perspective changes many things about the way man thinks.

Very true. As one book puts it: "After all, it is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average man unless it becomes emotionally activated. But the activation of religion is superemotional, unifying the entire human experience on transcendent levels through contact with, and release of, spiritual energies in the mortal life."

I think what we incorporate into our lives essentially becomes part of us. Many haven't been afforded the luxury of those choices in history but I think the bottom line is many will hear but few will listen.

[Dark Matter]

I think what we incorporate into our lives essentially becomes part of us. Many haven't been afforded the luxury of those choices in history but I think the bottom line is many will hear but few will listen.

Not many know how to listen.

[Sy Borg]

What are the more real and fundamental qualities of "God" that are not in "universe" aside from anthropomorphism?

Good question. Theists have been asking that for centuries.

Then let's go there - especially if this is coming close to the nub of the OP.

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?

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?

I do not see intelligibility as being evidence of God, rather reality is patterned and brained animals can gain some understanding of what those patterns mean in a practical sense, with humans of course taking this dynamic to another level.

How do "patterned and brained animals" come about? Without pre-established rules, the only thing you get from chaos is chaos. Even your much vaunted fractals obey rules. Where do they come from? Why? The idea of multiple universe multiplies the problem multiple times.

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.

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.

The concept of "God" puts man in a very real and different perspective than many religions. Man is not the creator but rather the created. That perspective changes many things about the way man thinks.

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.

As one book puts it: "After all, it is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average man unless it becomes emotionally activated. But the activation of religion is superemotional, unifying the entire human experience on transcendent levels through contact with, and release of, spiritual energies in the mortal life."

Belief may be an effective mind hack, and certainly many lower ranked athletes have at least given themselves a chance of beating far more skilled opponents by believing they can win. However, this does not deal with the ontology. What is useful is often not what is real.

The statement about religion seems to be entirely theoretical. How many of the evangelist or Islamic flocks do you reckon are experiencing superemotions in reflecting upon the entire human experience on transcendental levels?? I'd say the tiniest fraction of a percent at best. 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.

[jerlands]

The concept of "God" puts man in a very real and different perspective than many religions. Man is not the creator but rather the created. That perspective changes many things about the way man thinks.

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.

You want me to explain how creation works? What causes things to form together and rise up to become life? Hmmm, how many pages do I get Well, I don't know but maybe you'll get the chance to see if you can bring it about one day.

[Sy Borg]

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.

You want me to explain how creation works?

No, just why a creator must be conscious. If you can't know, why claim it?

[jerlands]

You want me to explain how creation works?

No, just why a creator must be conscious. If you can't know, why claim it?

Why do you think I can't know? Because you are an argument? You see things differently so only time will tell if your cake turns out or not. Same applies to me.

[Dark Matter]

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

Belief may be an effective mind hack, and certainly many lower ranked athletes have at least given themselves a chance of beating far more skilled opponents by believing they can win. However, this does not deal with the ontology. What is useful is often not what is real.

Undoubtedly true.

The statement about religion seems to be entirely theoretical. How many of the evangelist or Islamic flocks do you reckon are experiencing superemotions in reflecting upon the entire human experience on transcendental levels?? I'd say the tiniest fraction of a percent at best.

Also true.

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.