Is God In Anyway Necessary?

[Wandered Off]

It depends on the use to which the apple is being put. And changing the perceived truth of the apple can be accomplished merely by changing perspective.

Then wouldn't the answer to your question be the same, "It depends" instead of the definitive "There are no things"?

 

[doppelganger]

Then wouldn't the answer to your question be the same, "It depends" instead of the definitive "There are no things"?

Sort of. The answer to the question "are all things one?" is both "yes" and "no."

 

[Storm]

But all that is a product of consciousness as well, right? Change is a perception that depends on observation integrating with memory. Without the transaction between sensation and memory, how can there be change?

Dopp, I'm enjoying this conversation immensely, butI just woke up and I honestly can't tell whether I'm just explaining myself badly or you're trying to get me to see from a new perspective. I don't want to be stubborn, but I do want to be clear.

So with that understood, before we go any further, do you understand what I'm trying to say, or do I need to start over?

 

[doppelganger]

So with that understood, before we go any further, do you understand what I'm trying to say, or do I need to start over?

I think I reasonably understand what you are explaining. Though if I didn't, I wouldn't know, would I?

 

[Wandered Off]

Sort of. The answer to the question "are all things one?" is both "yes" and "no."

That's what I thought, but my confusion arose because your question seems to have an implicit advocacy contrary to that (leading the witness, counselor ). I probably misread it.

 

[Storm]

I think I reasonably understand what you are explaining.

OK, good.

Though if I didn't, I wouldn't know, would I?

With that out of the way....

But all that is a product of consciousness as well, right? Change is a perception that depends on observation integrating with memory. Without the transaction between sensation and memory, how can there be change?

If my religion had more than the one adherent, this would probably be our most important theological debate: whether (and which) any of the three elements is superior. However, it doesn't, so I get to say definitively that they're all equal.

Honestly, I can see your argument, but I don't agree. I can imagine a Godiverse lacking consciousness, where nothing evolves, just sort of spinning aimlessly. Likewise, I can imagine the static, yet conscious Godiverse, aware yet unable to move and also unable to evolve. Both of them sound horrific to me.

See, evolution is the clincher for me. I believe that's the whole point, the grand purpose, for God to evolve. It takes both life force and consciousness for that to happen, as far as I can see.

 

[Buttercup]

If God is in any way or sense necessary, in what way or sense is He necessary? And why is He necessary?

Because God hasn't told me personally that he is indeed necessary....I'm surmising he doesn't care whether I think so or not.

 

[doppelganger]

If my religion had more than the one adherent, this would probably be our most important theological debate: whether (and which) any of the three elements is superior. However, it doesn't, so I get to say definitively that they're all equal.

Religions with only one adherent are the very best kind in my opinion. According to my one-adherent religion, all ideas and things are composed of relationships in thought. So consciousness provides all of the form for the reality I experience. Though there is a substance that cannot be named or identified onto which that form is projected - call it "the Tao", or the "non-local hidden variable", "Brahman" or maybe even "God." Just don't forget that whatever I call it and however I conceive of it is not it. Not even thoughts about it having "being" or being an "it" are it.

I can imagine a Godiverse lacking consciousness, where nothing evolves, just sort of spinning aimlessly. Likewise, I can imagine the static, yet conscious Godiverse, aware yet unable to move and also unable to evolve. Both of them sound horrific to me.

But only because you are imagining it.

See, evolution is the clincher for me. I believe that's the whole point, the grand prupose, for God to evolve. It takes both life force and consciousness for that to happen, as far as I can see.

Very interesting, Storm. To evolve to what? Simply to change for the sake of change? Are you familiar with process theology?

 

[Ozzie]

In what way do you think God is necessary for some people?

Doesn't God reduce spirituality to first principles in order to enable debate of spiritual qualities?

 

[Mister_T]

I think it largely depends on the individual. Some people feel the need for God, some don't

I'd be even so bold to say that needing God to function isn't biblical. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. Biblically, God is depicted as being in the background waiting for us to want/call on him, but it doesn't say we have to in order to function.

 

[Buttercup]

Though there is a substance that cannot be named or identified onto which that form is projected - call it "the Tao", or the "non-local hidden variable", "Brahman" or maybe even "God." Just don't forget that whatever I call it and however I conceive of it is not it. Not even thoughts about it having "being" or being an "it" are it.

So, in other words....we should all stop trying to define "it"? Given the nature of humans, I say that's an impossible task for those who really want to know "it".

 

[Buttercup]

I'd be even so bold to say that needing God to function isn't biblical. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. Biblically, God is depicted as being in the background waiting for us to want/call on him, but it doesn't say we have to in order to function.

But, even that is assuming the Abrahamic biblical description of who God is/isn't is correct. How can we really know?

 

[Ozzie]

So, in other words....we should all stop trying to define "it"? Given the nature of humans, I say that's an impossible task for those who really want to know "it".

That would be true if we could know God as an "original work". However, even that is undefined/ineffable.

 

[Buttercup]

That would be true if we could know God as an "original work". However, even that is undefined/ineffable.

Exactly. Doesn't stop people from assigning their own attributes to God. Makes them feel better. Problems arise when one person's version is advertised as a better/bigger/brighter God.

 

[Storm]

To evolve to what?

A mature Godiverse; ours is a juvenile, I think. What a mature one looks like, I have no idea, but I'm excited

Simply to change for the sake of change?

No, I believe there is a specific goal. What that is beyond "mature," I'm not sure.

Are you familiar with process theology?

No, not really.

 

[Ozzie]

Exactly. Doesn't stop people from assigning their own attributes to God. Makes them feel better. Problems arise when one person's version is advertised as a better/bigger/brighter God.

So for some God is necessary as a projection of themselves. I think God is much more necessary as a cultural projection in a consolidated form.

 

[Buttercup]

So for some God is necessary as a projection of themselves.

Yes, and I believe that's why God was invented. At least in book form

I think God goes much further as a cultural projection in a consolidated form.

Could you define, "much further"?

 

[Mister_T]

But, even that is assuming the Abrahamic biblical description of who God is/isn't is correct. How can we really know?

We don't. I assumend that we were talking about the god of Abraham.

 

[Buttercup]

We don't. I assumend that we were talking about the god of Abraham.

Sure, He's included with all the others....no prob.

 

[Ozzie]

Could you define, "much further"?

Beyond a personal interpretation towards a shared conception.