From a Deos to Your God

[Heyo]

There are quite a few current discussions about the existence of god(s) and they haven't changed much in the last few hundreds of years. No new arguments on either side and it tends to get boring.
I like to introduce a new discussion (again, former attempts didn't yield much attention).

Assuming the existence of a creator is given, how do you get to your understanding of god?

You may make additional assumptions but you have to point them out, no hidden assumptions.
Try to keep your assumptions minimal.

Those who don't participate will function as referees, pointing out hidden assumptions and keeping score.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm sorry... what is the purpose of "keeping score" exactly? I get the importance of being salient of foundational assumptions (we all have them) but given that our foundational assumptions are often so deeply-engrained we don't notice them, it isn't exactly fair to be "keeping score" when someone forgets to mention one of them. The idea of scorekeeping doesn't exactly set a good stage for a non-hostile debate or discussion environment. It's certainly making me not want to bother.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm sorry... what is the purpose of "keeping score" exactly? I get the importance of being salient of foundational assumptions (we all have them) but given that our foundational assumptions are often so deeply-engrained we don't notice them, it isn't exactly fair to be "keeping score" when someone forgets to mention one of them. The idea of scorekeeping doesn't exactly set a good stage for a non-hostile debate or discussion environment. It's certainly making me not want to bother.

I don't really feel like contributing much for the following reason myself:

I think @Heyo is a nice guy, but it comes down to this:

1. Religious people have a way of finding symbolism and connection in events which atheists/agnostics would never understand.

2. Atheists/agnostics require a level of evidence to any assertion they pay attention to, in a way religious people would never understand.

It's hard enough to have such a debate with someone of the same faith as me.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't really feel like contributing much for the following reason myself:

I think @Heyo is a nice guy, but it comes down to this:

1. Religious people have a way of finding symbolism and connection in events which atheists/agnostics would never understand.

2. Atheists/agnostics require a level of evidence to any assertion they pay attention to, in a way religious people would never understand.

It's hard enough to have such a debate with someone of the same faith as me.

I don't know if I'd characterize it as an inability to understand. This is sometimes the case - particularly where people are unaware of their foundational assumptions and how that shapes their worldviews - but more often than not it's mostly a product of worldviews being different from one another. If you're using map A to interpret the territory, you'll navigate it differently than if you're using map B to interpret the territory. That sort of thing. Some folks are good at using multiple maps or paradigm shifting, others are not.

 

[Heyo]

@Quintessence, @KAT-KAT,

thank you for your contributions. I appreciate your helpful criticism. Maybe I have always failed to find the encouraging words to make such a debate a success.
I also see you both rarely in the "does god exist" debates, so you may have never been that much interested in those kind of questions. I hope some of the debaters who frequent those discussions are interested in trying something new and don't get repelled by my setup.
Please, if you don't like the "rules" but have something to contribute, do.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is a very good question, @Heyo.
The truth is: how can we define God when in Indoeuropean languages it deals with terms (deus, gott, deva) invented to describe anthropomorphical deities? In Germanic or Greek Paganism...for example.
At a certain point of history, God has become something purely metaphysical...and so it is very difficult to describe Him as a creator...even if when Christians speak of Him, for example, do anthropomorphize Him. And yet with so many Christians believing in Evolution...the concept of Creator becomes metaphorical, allegorical.

How do I get to my understanding of God?
In several moments of my life I felt so close to God that I could describe Him better.
It is when a person experiments love, compassion...empathy...that God becomes visible. But of course it is not a person.

 

[PureX]

Assuming the existence of a creator is given, how do you get to your understanding of god?

I have no understanding of God. God is the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And I am trusting in the benevolence of this unknown because I need to, and because my life is better when I do.

 

[Nakosis]

There are quite a few current discussions about the existence of god(s) and they haven't changed much in the last few hundreds of years. No new arguments on either side and it tends to get boring.
I like to introduce a new discussion (again, former attempts didn't yield much attention).

Assuming the existence of a creator is given, how do you get to your understanding of god?

You may make additional assumptions but you have to point them out, no hidden assumptions.
Try to keep your assumptions minimal.

Those who don't participate will function as referees, pointing out hidden assumptions and keeping score.

At the basis of all knowledge is some assumption. The point being I suppose is whether the assumption are hidden from ourselves, the believer in God or not.
Though one doesn't need to be a believer in a God to have hidden assumption in our knowledge which allows folks some unjustified certainty.

While it can be a beneficial discussion, I've found it very difficult, actually bordering on impossible to get some people to accept/acknowledge the hidden assumptions at the basis of their knowledge. Or maybe a number are aware of the necessity of assumptions made for the sake of knowledge and choose the ones they are comfortable with.

So there is no negative judgement against people for their assumptions, as we all have them.

 

[Quintessence]

@Quintessence, @KAT-KAT,

thank you for your contributions. I appreciate your helpful criticism. Maybe I have always failed to find the encouraging words to make such a debate a success.
I also see you both rarely in the "does god exist" debates, so you may have never been that much interested in those kind of questions. I hope some of the debaters who frequent those discussions are interested in trying something new and don't get repelled by my setup.
Please, if you don't like the "rules" but have something to contribute, do.

Thanks for being understanding!

I rarely participate much in the "does god exist" debates because I think it's a stupid question. The reasons why I think it's a stupid question are probably best expressed in a recent post I made here:

Existence is a painfully low bar to clear, honestly. Those who don't believe there is sufficient evidence for the gods have this happen to themselves because they hold to one or more of the following assumptions:

• On Defining Reality. Those who can deny the existence of gods hold an ontological perspective that defines existence and reality narrowly enough to exclude the possibility of gods from consideration.
• On Defining Gods. Those who deny the existence of gods hold an understanding of what gods are that is narrow enough to exclude them from consideration.
• On Defining Evidence. Those who deny the existence of gods must disregard or limit the forms of evidence they consider in order to maintain their position.

The converse of these are also true for those who accept the gods - they define reality in such a way that allows for gods, define gods in such a way that allows for gods, and assess evidence in a way that allows for gods. It's not really that complicated, honestly, but it does all rest on one's foundational assumptions that in of themselves are not provable one way or another. It's a matter of what story you want to tell and why. When it comes to the gods, "evidence" for the gods really isn't the point of embracing that idea in one's life. It's much more about recognizing there are forces in the universe bigger than you are and respecting that in some way.

How people answer the question has very little to do with the gods themselves but with a person's philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality, gods, and evidence. Any given perspective on the gods can be correct or incorrect depending on these assumptions, and these assumptions are foundational (that is, they cannot be proven or disproven).

But to answer the question of the OP anyway - though I'm not sure I qualify given my gods are not "creator" gods in the sense the OP likely means - one learns about the gods through.... uh ... everything. Literally everything. All academic fields of study from the sciences to the arts and humanities, all personal experiences, all experiences of others, just... everything. All of it. It kind of works that way when your gods are also literally everything.

 

[chinu]

Assuming the existence of a creator is given, how do you get to your understanding of god?

I have my own understandings about creator. I don't relay on anybody else's understandings.

 

[Nakosis]

I have no understanding of God. God is the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And I am trusting in the benevolence of this unknown because I need to, and because my life is better when I do.

What do you feel would be missing if there was no God?

 

[Nakosis]

I have my own understandings about creator. I don't relay on anybody else's understandings.

The question though is where does your understanding come from? Is it a matter of logical reasoning?

 

[chinu]

The question though is where does your understanding come from?

Meditation. meditation is the source.

 

[PureX]

What do you feel would be missing if there was no God?

Everything. God is the source of all that is.

 

[Nakosis]

Everything. God is the source of all that is.

Well, I suppose that would make your existence difficult.

 

[PureX]

I have my own understandings about creator. I don't relay on anybody else's understandings.

That wasn't the question.

 

[PureX]

Well, I suppose that would make your existence difficult.

I don't know what you're getting at, here. Yes, I would not exist, either. Nothing would.

 

[Nakosis]

Meditation. meditation is the source.

Meditation was the source of my knowledge about God too. I followed a Guru for a while and what he told me about God could be experienced during meditation. That certainly reinforced what you are saying.

What does meditation tell you about God?

 

[chinu]

Meditation was the source of my knowledge about God too. I followed a Guru for a while and what he told me about God could be experienced during meditation. That certainly reinforced what you are saying.

Meditation itself is the teacher. It was an accident discovery in my case.

What does meditation tell you about God?

Meditation don't tell. Meditation gives taste of God.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know what you're getting at, here. Yes, I would not exist, either. Nothing would.

Not getting at anything really, just groking the basis of your belief. Your assumption being that nothing could exist without God. That's an assumption I don't have.