Mickiel's proof of God.

[challupa]

The question of whether God exists has to do with whether he exists in the same sense that the Earth exists. Ideals are not real objects in the world.

That is what I have been trying to say. I can not "know" god exists in the same way I know "I" exist for example. I cannot experience god the same way as I can experience the physical world. Therefore, to me, god is a being that comes from our heads when we are trying to make sense of the world. Because we know we feel better when we are experiencing love and feel safer and more comfortable in a world of compassion and love, we transfer these characteristics onto a being that we see as our creator because to give that creator "nasty" attributes is too scary so therefore avoided at all costs. If there is a creator, and I am by know means convinced there is, I feel it is too idealistic to believe that this creator is all about love. Possibly he would personify, like you mentioned, all these "good" characteristics. Possibly he would personify the full spectrum, which would also include the things we don't feel comfortable like cruelty etc. Bottom line, I don't know. I will continue to ask, listen and see what resonates for me.

 

[Thief]

Copernicus of astronomy fame, believed in God.
He served as Canon of Frauenberg during the latter portion of his life.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus of astronomy fame, believed in God.
He served as Canon of Frauenberg during the latter portion of his life.

That is correct. That Copernicus was a very devout Christian, and he even got the Pope to endorse his theory in the beginning. Then the Church had second thoughts. They burned his books and thoroughly repudiated his ideas after he died. Lucky for him that he escaped Galileo's treatment. Galileo was another devout Christian who had the effrontery to prove Copernicus's theory that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

 

[PureX]

Thank you for your answers. I agree seeing god is a choice. I also agree that love can change our perspective on things. Does love help us transcend ourselves? That would depend on our definition of "self" I guess. I see self as a multifaceted thing. I am a variety of layers each one of them being more conscious than the next. Kind of like how our bodies are made up of cells, atoms etc. All of them as important as the other in order to be a Physical human body. I am not arguing that love isn't important, I am just not seeing how the presence of love can be attributed to a god. And I understand that is my choice whether to see that love is god or not. I believe that the transcendence humans can sometimes attain is when they are able to reach a higher level of awareness and, yes, love can be the tool to do that. I think we are agreeing on many points. I just don't attribute the good that humans can transcend to, to be attributed to a god. However, I could be wrong. Been known to happen :yes:

A simple example of transcendent love often happens to people when they have children. Until they hold that baby in their arms for the first time, they have never really understood what it means to love "unconditionally". I have had many friends tell me this. Yes, they loved their husbands and wives, and that love changed their lives, but when they had their first child, love itself changed. And they instinctively placed themselves at the service of that child, for life. This is what I mean by transcending one's self. Having that child made the parents become new and different people, in the most profound way. Such an experience is more important to some people than life itself. They need to put it in a higher category. So for them, it becomes a kind of 'divine' experience.

"God" is not always viewed as an invisible buddy, or some ghostly overlord. Those are the images of God that bad religions place in children's minds, to coerce them into behaving the way they want. For most grown ups, it's understood that "God" is essentially a mystery. A spiritual mystery. A 'being' that represents the divine and transcendent experiences that we have in life.

Theists don't argue about the physical existence of "God", because they don't care about that stuff. God exists both as an ideal, and as a real experience. The physics of God are irrelevant. And I agree with them about this.

 

[PureX]

You are using "create" here in a metaphorical sense. Nothing wrong with that, but remember that metaphors are analogies. They are useful for explaining concepts,

Also keep in mind that the term "create" is a bit of a conceptual oxymoron. On the one hand, we humans create nothing. All we can do is re-arrange things to make them more useful. On the other hand, some of those re-arrangements result in objects never before seen nor occurred. So in that sense they are a new creation.

I wasn't using the term strictly metaphorically. When we are changed by the experience of love, we do become a new person: one that didn't exist before, even though we're still made up of the same physical material. We really are, in a sense, re-created. Or reborn. For that person, it's not 'metaphorical'. It's a very real experience.

Nope. You cannot draw that conclusion from your earlier metaphorical use of "create".

Sorry. I keep forgetting that you're the keeper of all those universal rules. *snickering*

I think that the explanation of the "God is love" claim has little to do with the notion of transcendence. Rather it is just part of the language of hyperbole that theists often use to describe a perfect being. He doesn't transcend his attributes. He personifies them.

It depends. Not all theists have experienced this sort of divine transcendence. And until one experiences it, they aren't likely to understand it, or in some cases, even believe that it happens. So for them, the "God is love" theme is religious rhetoric. They know no better. For others, who have experienced this sort of divine transformation, it's very real.

You are caught up in what is known as the reification fallacy. That is, you are confusing abstractions with things that exist in the physical world. The question of whether God exists has to do with whether he exists in the same sense that the Earth exists. Ideals are not real objects in the world.

Love is real. Art is real. Kindness is real. Justice is real. "I" am real. These things are as real as it gets. The fact that they are not physical is of no matter to me. The universe is full of physical objects that are of no matter or use to me. I'm not dismissing the physical aspect of reality, but nor will I allow myself to become an idiot for it's sake. A chair, sitting in a world devoid of the idea of a "chair" is just a useless couple of pieces of wood, stuck together in a meaningless way, that no one will ever sit on.

You say, "but it's REAL!" And I say, "so what"? It's the tree falling in the woods that no one can hear.

 

[PureX]

That is what I have been trying to say. I can not "know" god exists in the same way I know "I" exist for example. I cannot experience god the same way as I can experience the physical world. Therefore, to me, god is a being that comes from our heads when we are trying to make sense of the world. Because we know we feel better when we are experiencing love and feel safer and more comfortable in a world of compassion and love, we transfer these characteristics onto a being that we see as our creator because to give that creator "nasty" attributes is too scary so therefore avoided at all costs. If there is a creator, and I am by know means convinced there is, I feel it is too idealistic to believe that this creator is all about love. Possibly he would personify, like you mentioned, all these "good" characteristics. Possibly he would personify the full spectrum, which would also include the things we don't feel comfortable like cruelty etc. Bottom line, I don't know. I will continue to ask, listen and see what resonates for me.

Not all theists anthropomorphize God in this way. In fact, many do not. Buddhism is one of the biggest religions on Earth and they don't anthropomorphize God in the way you are describing. And many religions that do use such anthropomorphized images do so deliberately and consciously simply for convenience sake. They know that these images are not really "God", but are just simple humanized representations ... just convenient and useful idols.

Just because you reject those old Christian God images doesn't mean you have to reject the ideal of "God".

 

[mickiel]

Love is real. Art is real. Kindness is real. Justice is real. "I" am real. These things are as real as it gets. The fact that they are not physical is of no matter to me. The universe is full of physical objects that are of no matter or use to me. I'm not dismissing the physical aspect of reality, but nor will I allow myself to become an idiot for it's sake. A chair, sitting in a world devoid of the idea of a "chair" is just a useless couple of pieces of wood, stuck together in a meaningless way, that no one will ever sit on.

You say, "but it's REAL!" And I say, "so what"? It's the tree falling in the woods that no one can hear.

It just does not get any better than this, wisdom at its finest.

Just a breath of fresh air.

Peace.

 

[challupa]

A simple example of transcendent love often happens to people when they have children. Until they hold that baby in their arms for the first time, they have never really understood what it means to love "unconditionally". I have had many friends tell me this. Yes, they loved their husbands and wives, and that love changed their lives, but when they had their first child, love itself changed. And they instinctively placed themselves at the service of that child, for life. This is what I mean by transcending one's self. Having that child made the parents become new and different people, in the most profound way. Such an experience is more important to some people than life itself. They need to put it in a higher category. So for them, it becomes a kind of 'divine' experience.

"God" is not always viewed as an invisible buddy, or some ghostly overlord. Those are the images of God that bad religions place in children's minds, to coerce them into behaving the way they want. For most grown ups, it's understood that "God" is essentially a mystery. A spiritual mystery. A 'being' that represents the divine and transcendent experiences that we have in life.

Theists don't argue about the physical existence of "God", because they don't care about that stuff. God exists both as an ideal, and as a real experience. The physics of God are irrelevant. And I agree with them about this.

I do agree that there are different levels and kinds of love. I believe we are able to reach these levels through meditation also. I think we give credit to god because we have been told we are sinners and our only way to joy is to accept this god. I don't agree. I think we sell ourselves short as humans. I think we are quite capable of reaching that transcendant level you speak of without needing to believe in a higher power. That is one thing I have against the belief in god. It leaves humans thinking they are nothing without their god and I do not believe that to be true. I think it is time to take responsibility for our well being and leave behind the sense of dependency on god that so many religions instill in their members. We don't need god to be good citizens and we don't need god in order to love and feel good within ourselves. That I have found to be true.

 

[challupa]

Not all theists anthropomorphize God in this way. In fact, many do not. Buddhism is one of the biggest religions on Earth and they don't anthropomorphize God in the way you are describing. And many religions that do use such anthropomorphized images do so deliberately and consciously simply for convenience sake. They know that these images are not really "God", but are just simple humanized representations ... just convenient and useful idols.

Just because you reject those old Christian God images doesn't mean you have to reject the ideal of "God".

No that's true. I do feel more comfortable with Buddhism than I have ever felt with Christianity. However, I don't feel I am losing anything by rejecting the "ideal" of god. If god exists then he is a mystery that I will not solve so I must take on the responsibility for my actions and not just try to do things because I think god wants me to.

 

[PureX]

I do agree that there are different levels and kinds of love. I believe we are able to reach these levels through meditation also. I think we give credit to god because we have been told we are sinners and our only way to joy is to accept this god. I don't agree. I think we sell ourselves short as humans. I think we are quite capable of reaching that transcendant level you speak of without needing to believe in a higher power. That is one thing I have against the belief in god. It leaves humans thinking they are nothing without their god and I do not believe that to be true. I think it is time to take responsibility for our well being and leave behind the sense of dependency on god that so many religions instill in their members. We don't need god to be good citizens and we don't need god in order to love and feel good within ourselves. That I have found to be true.

I think we should keep "God", and get rid of the religions. *smile*

Why not just think of love as that "higher power". That "power greater than ourselves", that has the ability to lift us up, and heals us, and make us better people than we were.

I still think your problem is with a misguided religious interpretation of God that you've been fed somewhere along the line, and still assume IS God. I agree with taking responsibility, as you say. But why not take responsibility for creating your own idea of God? An idea that works for you?

I'm just saying ...

 

[challupa]

I think we should keep "God", and get rid of the religions. *smile*

Why not just think of love as that "higher power". That "power greater than ourselves", that has the ability to lift us up, and heals us, and make us better people than we were.

I still think your problem is with a misguided religious interpretation of God that you've been fed somewhere along the line, and still assume IS God. I agree with taking responsibility, as you say. But why not take responsibility for creating your own idea of God? An idea that works for you?

I'm just saying ...

I understand what you are saying, that you believe there is a god that makes us better people. I don't think there is a need for a god to make us a better people. That's where I stand. I don't feel the need for a higher power. God is not something I feel I need in order to feel safe, happy and fulfilled. I don't believe I am a sinner, so I don't need god to be saved for example. However, I am aware of what you are saying and I believe you feel I might feel better if I could come to an understanding of god and a belief in that god would fulfill me. Thank you for that. I am quite comfortable with my lack of belief in a god though.

 

[Copernicus]

Not all theists anthropomorphize God in this way. In fact, many do not. Buddhism is one of the biggest religions on Earth and they don't anthropomorphize God in the way you are describing...

You cannot generalize Buddhism in this way. Like other religions, it comes in several varieties. The majority of Buddhists seem to believe in the existence of gods, and bodhisattvas are worshiped as such, although many Buddhists will deny that they are gods in a conventional sense. Boddhisatvas are about as anthropomorphic as divine beings can get. Tibetan Buddhism is especially noteworthy for its promotion of belief in deities.

And many religions that do use such anthropomorphized images do so deliberately and consciously simply for convenience sake. They know that these images are not really "God", but are just simple humanized representations ... just convenient and useful idols.

In other words, they can have their gods and deny them, too. I would say that that is very convenient. :areyoucra

Just because you reject those old Christian God images doesn't mean you have to reject the ideal of "God".

The problem is that the less anthropomorphic gods become, the less useful they are to human beings. At a minimum, they must be capable of being influenced by our behavior. On the other hand, the more anthropomorphic they become, the less believable they are. So theists constantly face the dilemma of denying and embracing anthropomorphism at the same time.

 

[PureX]

In other words, they can have their gods and deny them, too. I would say that that is very convenient.

Yeah, it's a shame we're not the one-dimensional idiots some folks would like us to be.

The problem is that the less anthropomorphic gods become, the less useful they are to human beings. At a minimum, they must be capable of being influenced by our behavior. On the other hand, the more anthropomorphic they become, the less believable they are. So theists constantly face the dilemma of denying and embracing anthropomorphism at the same time.

I don't agree with this at all. I find that the concept of "God" is far more useful and effective the more it's separated from such superstitious anthropomorphism. The difficulty is that as we do so, the idea becomes more difficult to conceptualize because of paradox. It's easy to intellectually grasp a human-like icon. It's far more difficult to intellectualize the ideals that the icon is intended to represent. But the usefulness of the God-concept rests in our relationship with those ideals, not in our relationship with an anthropomorphic icon.

 

[Thief]

I agree, the long standing concept of a mighty white-haired god, sitting on a throne, should be let go.

But does this help to say?
I think, therefore I am....as compared to
I think, therefore God is.

 

[PureX]

But does this help to say?
I think, therefore I am....as compared to
I think, therefore God is.

You don't exist because you think. You exist because you think you exist. So technically, it would be: "I think I am, therefor I am". And: "I think God is, therefor God is".

 

[challupa]

Yeah, it's a shame we're not the one-dimensional idiots some folks would like us to be.
I don't agree with this at all. I find that the concept of "God" is far more useful and effective the more it's separated from such superstitious anthropomorphism. The difficulty is that as we do so, the idea becomes more difficult to conceptualize because of paradox. It's easy to intellectually grasp a human-like icon. It's far more difficult to intellectualize the ideals that the icon is intended to represent. But the usefulness of the God-concept rests in our relationship with those ideals, not in our relationship with an anthropomorphic icon.

The description of something is not that "thing" (eg, a description of a door is not the door). I guess that's somewhat the meaning of this. Our description or belief of what god is, is not god.

 

[challupa]

I agree, the long standing concept of a mighty white-haired god, sitting on a throne, should be let go.

But does this help to say?
I think, therefore I am....as compared to
I think, therefore God is.

Well that's the thing. I cannot make the jump from I think, therefore I am to I think, therefore God is. It seems illogical to me. If we are honest with ourselves, the only thing we know for sure is that we are aware we are experiencing things.

 

[challupa]

You don't exist because you think. You exist because you think you exist. So technically, it would be: "I think I am, therefor I am". And: "I think God is, therefor God is".

I have been trying to tell you why a god is not important for me, but I have never asked you what your definition of god really is. Is god an actual being, an ideal, an essence, what is god to you. I understand you believe god is loving and belief in it helps humans transcend into that pure love, but what is god really.

 

[Copernicus]

Yeah, it's a shame we're not the one-dimensional idiots some folks would like us to be.

I'm not sure multidimensional idiots are much of an improvement. (Look, I don't take you for an idiot.)

The problem is that the less anthropomorphic gods become, the less useful they are to human beings. At a minimum, they must be capable of being influenced by our behavior. On the other hand, the more anthropomorphic they become, the less believable they are. So theists constantly face the dilemma of denying and embracing anthropomorphism at the same time.

I don't agree with this at all.

So you say, but then you go on to confirm my points with the following:

I find that the concept of "God" is far more useful and effective the more it's separated from such superstitious anthropomorphism. The difficulty is that as we do so, the idea becomes more difficult to conceptualize because of paradox. It's easy to intellectually grasp a human-like icon.

Exactly my point. I talked about "usefulness" in terms of human interaction. It's easy to grasp a human-like object, because you can interact with it. You can pray to humans and to gods for favorable treatment. You can't do that with an abstraction. What makes anthropomorphic gods less believable is the paradoxes, and you admit to that.

...It's far more difficult to intellectualize the ideals that the icon is intended to represent. But the usefulness of the God-concept rests in our relationship with those ideals, not in our relationship with an anthropomorphic icon.

There is another sense of usefulness that doesn't have anything to do with human interaction, and that is in rationalizing gods--making them believable. You need to get rid of the paradoxes that anthropomorphic gods tangle you up with.

So you have focused on my word "usefulness" and tried to change how we construe it. A concept can be useful in different ways. But my post was quite clear about the sense of usefulness I intended--not usefulness in terms of believability, but usefulness in terms of human interaction. And theists are stuck with that dilemma. They need to have gods that they can interact with at the same time that they need believable gods, and the two types of "usefulness" are incompatible. It is no accident that most people believe in anthropomorphic gods, but they deny anthropomorphism when trying to explain the true nature of the gods.

 

[Thief]

So...are we still trying to make the connection, that our awareness is somehow proof of a Greater Awareness, and the greater is also Creator?