What do you think God is?

[Beet]

To take a very stark and very simple example. The Christian, in order to please the avatar of god that he worships, wilfully opposes evolutionary theory thinking that to do so pleases god. In actuality, evolutionary theory is part of the human story and is very much, through intent or causation, a representation of god. So the non-believer is acknowledging god and is close to god through learning about the human story but the believer, who has idolised one archaic avatar of god relevant to a now passed period of human understanding, is through his worship…not really paying reverence to god at all. If that makes some sense.

In this particular example, I actually agree that you are right, and Christians should accept evolutionary theory. After all, if God did not endorse evolutionary theory in some form, why would he have put so much seeming evidence for it on earth? The critical part however, is to draw from this only what Descartes called clear and distinct conclusions, and nothing that is not fully justified by the "evidence."

More generally though, you have merely pointed out a possibility. We can never answer any questions about God definitively. So why worship a particular avatar? It can only be for the same reasons why we do anything. Although we can never really "know" anything, it does not matter so long as we are motivated to do things that serve a purpose, and belief / faith is a form of action. So simply, if it makes your life better, then believe; otherwise, do not. The question to examine is not whether God exists, or what form God takes, or what God wants of us, all of these questions are hopeless. The responsibility of the individual and community is to examine what is good for us and how we can better achieve what we want. Any faith in God must flow from this question, and more often than not it does in practice, despite that participants in the debate would claim otherwise.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm a standard Christian who believes in a personable, loving God.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Doesn't exist (atheist).

[DemPGH]

I recorded a program today on the Star of Bethlehem and am looking at it now. They talked to a bunch of historians and astronomers, to make a long story short. The Magi were clearly demonstrated to be stargazers with knowledge of what we would call astrology. The star itself was possibly Jupiter doing something odd, or a supernova. The point was that it attracted people who watched the sky.

In any event, it made me think how people personalize the cosmos and can quickly assume God when they simply don't have an explanation or are somehow not satisfied with the mundane.

. . . To me, God is a beautiful woman, the mother of earth.

God is also not kind. The God that a lot of people subscribe to is one that directly conflicts with the God we all know and love in the Old Testament, the God that burned down villages and slaughtered women and children. I think God is involved in our lives, but allows us to do anything we want. Sometimes she will play tricks on us. Sometimes she'll teach us lessons. Sometimes she will do nothing. It's all a game to our dear Lord, for her entertainment and ours. There have been too many coincidences recently for there not to be a higher power at work.

Sounds like a significant other!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Was this too wordy or too obvious to get a response?

Well first off, God is love and not a stranger.  The rules God uses are simple so that we can all know them.  God offers a full commitment you won't get from anyone else.  God tries to communicate this in ways we all can understand.

God never gives up on us.
God never disappoints us.
God never leaves us.
God never makes us cry.
God never says goodbye.
God never tells a hurtful lie.

We all recognize God and our hearts ache for God, but we're shy about acknowledging that need for someone else.  But God sees inside us and knows that, so God goes along with the game we insist upon. If we'd but ask God how God feels about us, we'd see the love we blind ourselves to.

Anyway, here's a video that explains it better than I can.

[Beet]

Was this too wordy or too obvious to get a response?

Well first off, God is love and not a stranger.  The rules God uses are simple so that we can all know them.  God offers a full commitment you won't get from anyone else.  God tries to communicate this in ways we all can understand.

God never gives up on us.
God never disappoints us.
God never leaves us.
God never makes us cry.
God never says goodbye.
God never tells a hurtful lie.

We all recognize God and our hearts ache for God, but we're shy about acknowledging that need for someone else.  But God sees inside us and knows that, so God goes along with the game we insist upon. If we'd but ask God how God feels about us, we'd see the love we blind ourselves to.

Anyway, here's a video that explains it better than I can.

Definitely not too wordy. I enjoyed the lines with the rhyme. Although obviously I think that God is a stranger in some ways, I don't think God has to be exclusively a stranger.

[afleitch]

Was this too wordy or too obvious to get a response?

Well first off, God is love and not a stranger.  The rules God uses are simple so that we can all know them.  God offers a full commitment you won't get from anyone else.  God tries to communicate this in ways we all can understand.

God never gives up on us.
God never disappoints us.
God never leaves us.
God never makes us cry.
God never says goodbye.
God never tells a hurtful lie.

We all recognize God and our hearts ache for God, but we're shy about acknowledging that need for someone else.  But God sees inside us and knows that, so God goes along with the game we insist upon. If we'd but ask God how God feels about us, we'd see the love we blind ourselves to.

Anyway, here's a video that explains it better than I can.

It was too old a meme

[GaussLaw]

I'm a standard Christian who believes in a personable, loving God.

This; but God also hates sin and unrighteousness, but wants all to come to repentance.  I also personally don't believe death is the last chance necessarily for a person, but I can't really elucidate much on that point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm a standard Christian who believes in a personable, loving God.

This; but God also hates sin and unrighteousness, but wants all to come to repentance.  I also personally don't believe death is the last chance necessarily for a person, but I can't really elucidate much on that point.

I think the problem I have with most fundamentalist interpretations of God is that they hold that they believe God hates sin and unrighteousness in and of themselves rather than because sin and unrighteousness are the cause of our separation from God due to our belief that they cause us to lose God's love.  I suspect that they distrust my interpretation because they view it as an pathway to licentiousness and immorality, but it really isn't.  Only a person who rejects God's love would choose to engage in activities they believe to be wrong.

[angus]

Was this too wordy or too obvious to get a response?

It's rather unlike you to seek anyone's approval on this forum.  Anyway, I have for a very long time regarded you as the smartest poster here, bar none, and I really don't think you require such criticism.

"God is love" is pretty much right.  That is not only canonical, but it also makes sense.  I say "God is light" but I could repurpose God in the way of Love just as easily.  I'm not really spiritual--I suppose that I'm shallow that way--but to the extent that I have a conception that comes to mind when I hear the word, and I suppose anyone would given the way language works, my conception of God is one of ethereal energy.  You interpret that as Love.  I as Light.  That could also reflect my training.  Light is Energy, and vice-versa.  Planck's hypothesis and all that.  

I will say that none of this beaded toga guy comes into my mind, but apparently it does to many posters here.  I find that striking.  Then again, we have lots of humanities/liberal arts types here, who consider The Classics (exceedingly ethnocentric Western versions thereof) the core part of a proper education.  On the other hand, I'm not surprised at the references to George Burns and Morgan Freeman.  Personally, I'd say that if I had to give it a physical form, then the only reference point I have is a very skinny, paper-thin, old, black woman from Mississippi, but one can never really be sure.  It's sort of like that Futurama episode already referenced.  (I'd actually thought of that long ago as well.)

The other bits--about not disappointing us and not leaving us--that's harder to swallow.  The gods we invent have wicked senses of humor, that much is obvious even to the most casual observer of life.  Then again, you have to take a leap of faith to buy into any of it.  You're strong enough to take that leap.  I am not sure that I am.  I suspect that most of us are not.  As I said before, you are the smartest one here.  You can be a real jackass sometimes, but that does not diminish your intellectual qualities.  For the rest of us, it's easier not bother your god or any other god, and hope that it never bothers us either.  The light/energy/love may or may not be out there, but we're more concerned with temporal and corporeal concerns.  You and Buddha and Jesus and Einstein may have the luxury of diving Truth, but the rest of us are too busy paying the rent and putting food on the table.  Get it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Was this too wordy or too obvious to get a response?

It's rather unlike you to seek anyone's approval on this forum.

Wasn't necessarily seeking approval, but a response. If this sort of thing wasn't going to get a response, there were other things I could have done than turning a somewhat silly thought into concrete words.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If one expects God to have a wicked sense of humor, would it not disappoint if God did not display it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be honest, the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

[angus]

the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

That is an interesting point of view, although I'm not sure that such knowledge would necessarily preclude faith in God.  I imagine that one might even be able to demonstrate that both leaps are simultaneously possible.  That could be a highly philosophical debate.  Probably over my head.

[DemPGH]

Was this too wordy or too obvious to get a response?

Well first off, God is love and not a stranger.  The rules God uses are simple so that we can all know them.  God offers a full commitment you won't get from anyone else.  God tries to communicate this in ways we all can understand.

God never gives up on us.
God never disappoints us.
God never leaves us.
God never makes us cry.
God never says goodbye.
God never tells a hurtful lie.

We all recognize God and our hearts ache for God, but we're shy about acknowledging that need for someone else.  But God sees inside us and knows that, so God goes along with the game we insist upon. If we'd but ask God how God feels about us, we'd see the love we blind ourselves to.

Anyway, here's a video that explains it better than I can.

It was too old a meme

Tbh, I heard that when I was ten, or something very like it, and the older I got the more I realized that it really didn't mean anything to me. It had no meaning.  

To be honest, the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

Biochemical processes are what we have to go on. I suppose I don't see why it's necessary or even desirable to infer some agent behind it that we know literally nothing about.

I think astrology is an excellent example as to why myth and science are simply on different trajectories. You can't conclude unscientific things from scientific information, I guess.

[afleitch]

To be honest, the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

But why should we think we deserve to be more than that? We just so happen to be a process in the universe that is (only by our own measure, remember) the most self-aware on this planet. Within pre-history, we have lost a competitor species who was also self-aware but to differing degree and with a differing outlook. And as for other planets around other suns in other galaxies well then who knows. It makes little sense to think that because we hold ourselves in such high esteem, even as the world outside our own window has grown immensely, that we are special enough to matter to the universe.

We are made of matter. We shouldn’t be put off by that for the same reason we shouldn’t be put off by the fact we are animals. We are here because we are here. Life is a process, not a condition that requires a diagnosis. You don't 'have life'. You do life. You are life. Life is not a property of matter, it is not the reason for the existence of the physical matter that that assembled to make up you. Other collections of physical matter don’t have life. Life is therefore one of many things that matter does.

Aren't we lucky.

And that’s okay.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Within pre-history, we have lost a competitor species who was also self-aware but to differing degree and with a differing outlook.

Are you referring to Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis or some other homonid?  While it is possible that they were a separate species, the evidence that Neanderthals were a separate species rather than a localized subspecies that lost out as its preferred habitat disappeared is decidedly lacking.  To me it appears that a large part of the desire that they be considered so is due to the same impulses that lead to the noble savage meme.

[bedstuy]

To be honest, the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

But why should we think we deserve to be more than that? We just so happen to be a process in the universe that is (only by our own measure, remember) the most self-aware on this planet. Within pre-history, we have lost a competitor species who was also self-aware but to differing degree and with a differing outlook. And as for other planets around other suns in other galaxies well then who knows. It makes little sense to think that because we hold ourselves in such high esteem, even as the world outside our own window has grown immensely, that we are special enough to matter to the universe.

We are made of matter. We shouldn’t be put off by that for the same reason we shouldn’t be put off by the fact we are animals. We are here because we are here. Life is a process, not a condition that requires a diagnosis. You don't 'have life'. You do life. You are life. Life is not a property of matter, it is not the reason for the existence of the physical matter that that assembled to make up you. Other collections of physical matter don’t have life. Life is therefore one of many things that matter does.

Aren't we lucky.

And that’s okay.

That makes a lot of sense.  Here's how I would look at it. 

Given the size of the universe, it's entirely likely that life would arise.  There are one hundred billion galaxies and our own by itself has 300 billion stars.  And, in those places where life happened, there is going to be one smartest species.  It's funny, we humans think our ability to think and reason is a trait that's more important than anything else and our superior skill in that area must have a purpose. 

But, imagine a blue whale, a blue whale might think he's the unique special animal on this planet because he's the biggest.  Bacteria might have a good claim as the most numerous creature on the planet.  A redwood might think being tallest is the key trait that makes them unique.  It's an entirely silly, selfish idea. 

Humans happen to be the smartest like redwoods happen to be tallest.  There is no basis to reason anything from there.  And, are we really lucky?  It's not like there's some lottery where disembodied spirits get assigned to be either a human or a plant or wisp of vapor on Jupiter.  Like the famous American sports proverb says, it is what it is.

[afleitch]

Within pre-history, we have lost a competitor species who was also self-aware but to differing degree and with a differing outlook.

Are you referring to Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis or some other homonid?  While it is possible that they were a separate species, the evidence that Neanderthals were a separate species rather than a localized subspecies that lost out as its preferred habitat disappeared is decidedly lacking.  To me it appears that a large part of the desire that they be considered so is due to the same impulses that lead to the noble savage meme.

You're being a tad pedantic over my use of the word 'species'

[bedstuy]

Within pre-history, we have lost a competitor species who was also self-aware but to differing degree and with a differing outlook.

Are you referring to Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis or some other homonid?  While it is possible that they were a separate species, the evidence that Neanderthals were a separate species rather than a localized subspecies that lost out as its preferred habitat disappeared is decidedly lacking.  To me it appears that a large part of the desire that they be considered so is due to the same impulses that lead to the noble savage meme.

You're being a tad pedantic over my use of the word 'species'

Ernest being pedantic, what a shock.  I actually saw a news story on this subject recently.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-homo-neanderthalensis-neanderthals-separate-human-species-02284.html

[Foucaulf]

I wonder those with all the abstract definitions in this thread wouldn't save themselves some mental gymnastics if they stopped believing altogether. That's pretty much my view - unless I need to appeal to God to explain why we should value something, I don't care to believe anything about it. I haven't reached that point yet.

If anyone here's interested, a related essay is something Derek Parfit wrote on how we can understand reality's existence. It's philosophically hard but basically tries to use logical inference to break down some naive perspectives on why we think things are what they are.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To be honest, the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

But why should we think we deserve to be more than that? We just so happen to be a process in the universe that is (only by our own measure, remember) the most self-aware on this planet. Within pre-history, we have lost a competitor species who was also self-aware but to differing degree and with a differing outlook. And as for other planets around other suns in other galaxies well then who knows. It makes little sense to think that because we hold ourselves in such high esteem, even as the world outside our own window has grown immensely, that we are special enough to matter to the universe.

We are made of matter. We shouldn’t be put off by that for the same reason we shouldn’t be put off by the fact we are animals. We are here because we are here. Life is a process, not a condition that requires a diagnosis. You don't 'have life'. You do life. You are life. Life is not a property of matter, it is not the reason for the existence of the physical matter that that assembled to make up you. Other collections of physical matter don’t have life. Life is therefore one of many things that matter does.

Aren't we lucky.

And that’s okay.

That makes a lot of sense.  Here's how I would look at it. 

Given the size of the universe, it's entirely likely that life would arise.  There are one hundred billion galaxies and our own by itself has 300 billion stars.  And, in those places where life happened, there is going to be one smartest species.  It's funny, we humans think our ability to think and reason is a trait that's more important than anything else and our superior skill in that area must have a purpose. 

But, imagine a blue whale, a blue whale might think he's the unique special animal on this planet because he's the biggest.  Bacteria might have a good claim as the most numerous creature on the planet.  A redwood might think being tallest is the key trait that makes them unique.  It's an entirely silly, selfish idea. 

Humans happen to be the smartest like redwoods happen to be tallest.  There is no basis to reason anything from there.  And, are we really lucky?  It's not like there's some lottery where disembodied spirits get assigned to be either a human or a plant or wisp of vapor on Jupiter.  Like the famous American sports proverb says, it is what it is.

What does whether or not we have a special place in the universe have to do with whether the Divine exists?  I'll admit that one's views on the subject would affect how one perceives the Divine.

[bedstuy]

To be honest, the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

But why should we think we deserve to be more than that? We just so happen to be a process in the universe that is (only by our own measure, remember) the most self-aware on this planet. Within pre-history, we have lost a competitor species who was also self-aware but to differing degree and with a differing outlook. And as for other planets around other suns in other galaxies well then who knows. It makes little sense to think that because we hold ourselves in such high esteem, even as the world outside our own window has grown immensely, that we are special enough to matter to the universe.

We are made of matter. We shouldn’t be put off by that for the same reason we shouldn’t be put off by the fact we are animals. We are here because we are here. Life is a process, not a condition that requires a diagnosis. You don't 'have life'. You do life. You are life. Life is not a property of matter, it is not the reason for the existence of the physical matter that that assembled to make up you. Other collections of physical matter don’t have life. Life is therefore one of many things that matter does.

Aren't we lucky.

And that’s okay.

That makes a lot of sense.  Here's how I would look at it. 

Given the size of the universe, it's entirely likely that life would arise.  There are one hundred billion galaxies and our own by itself has 300 billion stars.  And, in those places where life happened, there is going to be one smartest species.  It's funny, we humans think our ability to think and reason is a trait that's more important than anything else and our superior skill in that area must have a purpose. 

But, imagine a blue whale, a blue whale might think he's the unique special animal on this planet because he's the biggest.  Bacteria might have a good claim as the most numerous creature on the planet.  A redwood might think being tallest is the key trait that makes them unique.  It's an entirely silly, selfish idea. 

Humans happen to be the smartest like redwoods happen to be tallest.  There is no basis to reason anything from there.  And, are we really lucky?  It's not like there's some lottery where disembodied spirits get assigned to be either a human or a plant or wisp of vapor on Jupiter.  Like the famous American sports proverb says, it is what it is.

What does whether or not we have a special place in the universe have to do with whether the Divine exists?  I'll admit that one's views on the subject would affect how one perceives the Divine.

Oh, that's the clear implication of what you said.

To be honest, the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

My point is that there's a disconnect between the human perspective and reality.  The fact that humans are here is remarkable from a human perspective has no real bearing on anything.  What you find remarkable is defined by your limited perspective on the universe, which would likely be shared by any living, conscious being.

[Anonymouse]

What do you think God is?

A joke! *euphoria intensifies*

If I'm being honest, though, I don't believe there is a sentient Supreme Being, and if there is, He/She/It/They have nothing to do with human affairs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Within pre-history, we have lost a competitor species who was also self-aware but to differing degree and with a differing outlook.

Are you referring to Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis or some other homonid?  While it is possible that they were a separate species, the evidence that Neanderthals were a separate species rather than a localized subspecies that lost out as its preferred habitat disappeared is decidedly lacking.  To me it appears that a large part of the desire that they be considered so is due to the same impulses that lead to the noble savage meme.

You're being a tad pedantic over my use of the word 'species'

And you are being a tad oblivious to the tendency to romanticize those who have lost out and accentuate their differences with those who won.

[Yelnoc]

God is arbitrary. God is inhumane. God is unknowable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What does whether or not we have a special place in the universe have to do with whether the Divine exists?  I'll admit that one's views on the subject would affect how one perceives the Divine.

Oh, that's the clear implication of what you said.

To be honest, the strongest reason I have for believing in God is my inability to take the leap of faith that we humans have divined enough of the universe to know that we are only a bunch of biochemicals trying to replicate our molecules.

My point is that there's a disconnect between the human perspective and reality.  The fact that humans are here is remarkable from a human perspective has no real bearing on anything.  What you find remarkable is defined by your limited perspective on the universe, which would likely be shared by any living, conscious being.

Exactly.  We have a limited perspective, and it is insufficient to explain life, the universe, and everything.  But that hardly implies that we have a special place in the universe.  Indeed, I would hold that if anything the argument for humanity having a special place in the universe would be stronger, not weaker, if we were self-aware beings in a universe explainable through the use of only immutable physical laws.  However in either case, the argument for having or not having a special place is inconclusive.