What is your God?

[Clara Tea]

If you are alone in a room, is there any point to saying you’re the most important person in the room?

Is there any point in asking a monotheist who the most important god is?

It reminds me of a 2 floor elevator. You start on one floor and go to the other, so there is no point in asking someone which floor to choose.

Monotheism offers no choice (except, perhaps, atheism, then they are no longer monotheists).

However, it is possible that someone could invent a God (perhaps a golden calf), and that is what God has warned us about.

 

[Clara Tea]

"...the things of God are apparent in what was made..."

Even the first few of the ten commandments concerning "God" are correct in principle even if a self-aware God did not exist.
It is not difficult to see how universal adherence to the latter commandments would cause the world to be a wonderful place, but being anchored in absolute, universal truth is necessary.
It just so happens that truth is/became self-aware.

That basic universal truth is simple and can not be changed -call it most basic math, logic, physics -whatever. Upon that all else rests and from that all develops or is built.

That truth necessarily developed self-awareness before making all else possible -as a "self" is a mechanism which is able to understand present states and so create otherwise-impossible states.

"I AM THAT AM"

Atheists and theists, alike, agree that the universe was created (big bang). Atheists and theists, alike, agree that life was created from mud (chemicals). There is little difference between theists and atheists. Science isn't the enemy of religion, but it asserts the principles of religion. Theists may have to modify their thinking to accept this.

 

[Clara Tea]

Truth

Atheists and theists alike (of various denominations and sects) seek truth. But, the interpretation of what is truth and what is not makes determination of truth difficult or impossible.

Faced with probabilities of reality, quantum physicists assume that all results (dead cat and live cat...in the experiment of Schoedinger's Cat) are all probable, until a measurement is made, then it is determined what the real situation is (no longer a statement of probability (alive or dead)). But, in measure a particle, light (or some particle) must be used, and that disrupts the energy and position of the particle. So we know what state the particle used to be in, but we never know the current state of the particle.

I wondered if we could narrow down probability by determining where the particle was not (that would tell us where it might be, and the particle would not be disturbed).

Applying this to the search for truth, we might be able to discern the truth better if we studied what was certainly not true.

 

[Kfox]

Think out the box for at least a min. Years ago I watched an UU sermon online. Majority of members are either atheist to one degree or another and/or just don't identify with organized religion.

The pastor described God by saying if there are a list of value(s) you want to have or strengthen that you would "call to" what would they be?

What are your most important values that in your worse moment you'd need them most?

God-quisi idiom not a man in the sky.



Core Values List: Over 200 Personal Values to Live By Today


There are 200 "gods" so I couldn't list them all.

In my worse moment, I'd call to:

Freedom
Sound mind
Expression
Strength
Vitality

What are your gods?

My values are not something I can call upon for help in a time of need, my values are a part of who I am; they are always a part of me. I cannot equate my values as any type of a God.

 

[Tiberius]

The term god in context refers to your core values that without in essence you cannot live. It doesn't need one religious in nature. I referred to it as a label for a broader point.

However, the term "God" carries with it an enormous religious implication which is inappropriate if you are referring to "values that one cannot live without."

Since it has nothing to do with god and a god (not mono/polytheistic) l, I'd hope people think out of the box. Always look at OPs context. Word choice is irrelevant if one gets the point.

Perhaps the OP should have been more careful with their word choice when deciding to use the term "God" for this.

 

[Heyo]

Atheists and theists, alike, agree that the universe was created (big bang).

Nope.

Atheists and theists, alike, agree that life was created from mud (chemicals).

Nope.

There is little difference between theists and atheists. Science isn't the enemy of religion, but it asserts the principles of religion. Theists may have to modify their thinking to accept this.

Maybe.
Maybe it is just semantics but "created" implies a creator (as every apologist will tell you) and that is exactly where the differences lie. When things come together, by necessity or by random chance, there is no "creation", at least there is no creator.

 

[Colt]

God's mercy? Cancer patients die in agony. Prayers aren't answered.

Righteousness? God flooded the world (Noah), and many good people, including children, were murdered by God.

Love?

The assertions are not supported by the facts. Are lies for Jesus (or God) permitted?

Many theists claim moral superiority over atheists because atheists lack the fear in God. Yet, it seems that most of the moral lapses are from Christians (including preachers and politicians).

We are supposed to be tending to cancer patients. Is there no cancer in Atheism?

Noah's flood is a myth.

Atheist can be moral and immoral. The moral ones plagiarize their morality by not crediting the source of morality.

Your concept of God is a Santa Clause making all difficulties vanish. You're right, no such God exists.

 

[Colt]

My values are not something I can call upon for help in a time of need, my values are a part of who I am; they are always a part of me. I cannot equate my values as any type of a God.

Values are a derivative of the goodness of God. God created minds that can be responsive to his values and love others as he loves us.

 

[David Weaver]

You are right. Yet, I dont think you understood the idea behind that OP.

Probably not, the title said what is your God...for me there is only one answer to that...God, I think that's the reason it was reposed to me as what is God to you

 

[firedragon]

Probably not, the title said what is your God...for me there is only one answer to that...God, I think that's the reason it was reposed to me as what is God to you

Well, there are some people who just dont wish to understand anything further.

Cant help that. Bon voyage.

 

[Etritonakin]

Atheists and theists, alike, agree that the universe was created (big bang). Atheists and theists, alike, agree that life was created from mud (chemicals). There is little difference between theists and atheists. Science isn't the enemy of religion, but it asserts the principles of religion. Theists may have to modify their thinking to accept this.

The big difference being belief in a deity/deities, of course -and seeing evidence/necessity for such.
Physical life was created from mud, but theists believe in pre-physical or extra-physical life (not atom-based).
Science might allow for the existence of such -but usually does not see evidence.
Many religious would not agree with the idea of a developing God -often due to the idea of such being "eternal" -but one could both always have existed AND have developed.

I believe that if "science" uses the same reverse-engineering techniques it has for understanding the universe -and continues back prior to/beyond/outside the singularity/big bang, the will discover the necessity for the development of creativity. Everything needed to reach appoint of being able to look back on itself, recognize present limitations and cause new configurations.
It's just a matter of perspective at its heart -similar to the difference between cassettes and CDs. Same basic principles, but greater capability by different arrangement.
It is one thing to point out the errors of the religious, but another to recognize that creativity is a natural development -and the most likely suspect.

 

[Tiberius]

Physical life was created from mud...

Got a scientific source for this?

 

[David Weaver]

Atheists and theists, alike, agree that the universe was created (big bang). Atheists and theists, alike, agree that life was created from mud (chemicals). There is little difference between theists and atheists. Science isn't the enemy of religion, but it asserts the principles of religion. Theists may have to modify their thinking to accept this.

Many theists (myself included) already hold this view. So far I feel the best argument for this has been presented by J Warner Wallace in his book God's Crime Scene which has been a major component of my research

 

[syo]

In my worse moment, I'd call to:

Zeus.

 

[Etritonakin]

Got a scientific source for this?

"Mud" is, of course, not literal. Physical life is made from existing materials which also make up its environment.
"Created" was used by the other poster in a general sense -as in made by a process.
The atoms, etc., which make up physical life and its environment were, in turn, made by a process which arranged more simple things into new configurations.

Just some thoughts...
There is abundant evidence that awareness, self-awareness, creativity, are natural developments which then allow for the creation of otherwise-impossible states, arrangements and even automated processes. Dynamic nature must self-develop to this point before moving on.
Those new things are also inherently-indicative of awareness, self-awareness, creativity, etc.-and satisfy the developing psychological, etc., needs of such.
[Even if we are essentially A.I., a self-developing original would still be required.] My belief is that we are not the originals.
The proof would lie between greatest possible simplicity and the initiation of our universe.
Man can do what PRESENT nature alone can not -because we are creative. Our abilities are referenced against the "nature" which developed by the big bang.
"God's" abilities (or lack thereof) would be referenced against greatest possible simplicity -the nature of nature BEFORE present (element-based) nature.
Basically...would the real equivalent of things like ones and zeroes become a physical universe, planets, stars, life, humans, etc. first -or develop into a "self" capable of affecting and determining its environment/self (not much separation early on) -and eventually planning and initiating a universe?
Someone recently advised me to not underestimate the capabilities of nature -while also essentially telling me nature did not have or need any such capabilities.

For any level of nature to move beyond its own present capabilities, it must first develop into a "self" -that's really what a self is -and it is a naturally-occurring intermediate stage.
THAT IS HOW NATURE BECOMES CAPABLE -AND THAT IS THE REQUIRED CAPABILITY.

AN ORIGINAL WOULD BOTH SELF-DEVELOP AND "SELF" DEVELOP. IT WOULD HAVE INCREASING INPUT AS INCREASINGLY CAPABLE.
One interesting thing to think about in regard to being the originals or not is the fact that WE DID NOT TRULY SELF-DEVELOP.
Our bodies AUTOMATICALLY DEVELOPED from a certain point -but "WE" did not SELF-develop.
That is to say... No individual human (or any previous physical life form) historically had ANY input into the state of anything -much less themselves -(except for very limited education of future generations after they were born. Even collectively, humans are just reaching the point of having meaningful input into their own state or environment.
We awake as individuals -into already-extremely-complex-and-capable bodies and minds.
WE (any and/or all "I") did not actually develop in a step-by-step process -only our physical bodies did -after the universe was initiated and the elements, etc., were formed.

Furthermore... present nature answers every specific psychological need of an original. It is exactly what one would do. (Birds build nests, humans build houses and cities, God built a universe.)
Not only would it be impossible without a psychology/self -as such grants the necessary perspective and capability, but it is is also indicative thereof -PROOF when referenced against greatest possible simplicity.

 

[Tiberius]

"Mud" is, of course, not literal. Physical life is made from existing materials which also make up its environment.
"Created" was used by the other poster in a general sense -as in made by a process.
The atoms, etc., which make up physical life and its environment were, in turn, made by a process which arranged more simple things into new configurations.

Just some thoughts...
There is abundant evidence that awareness, self-awareness, creativity, are natural developments which then allow for the creation of otherwise-impossible states, arrangements and even automated processes. Dynamic nature must self-develop to this point before moving on.
Those new things are also inherently-indicative of awareness, self-awareness, creativity, etc.-and satisfy the developing psychological, etc., needs of such.
[Even if we are essentially A.I., a self-developing original would still be required.] My belief is that we are not the originals.
The proof would lie between greatest possible simplicity and the initiation of our universe.
Man can do what PRESENT nature alone can not -because we are creative. Our abilities are referenced against the "nature" which developed by the big bang.
"God's" abilities (or lack thereof) would be referenced against greatest possible simplicity -the nature of nature BEFORE present (element-based) nature.
Basically...would the real equivalent of things like ones and zeroes become a physical universe, planets, stars, life, humans, etc. first -or develop into a "self" capable of affecting and determining its environment/self (not much separation early on) -and eventually planning and initiating a universe?
Someone recently advised me to not underestimate the capabilities of nature -while also essentially telling me nature did not have or need any such capabilities.

For any level of nature to move beyond its own present capabilities, it must first develop into a "self" -that's really what a self is -and it is a naturally-occurring intermediate stage.
THAT IS HOW NATURE BECOMES CAPABLE -AND THAT IS THE REQUIRED CAPABILITY.

AN ORIGINAL WOULD BOTH SELF-DEVELOP AND "SELF" DEVELOP. IT WOULD HAVE INCREASING INPUT AS INCREASINGLY CAPABLE.
One interesting thing to think about in regard to being the originals or not is the fact that WE DID NOT TRULY SELF-DEVELOP.
Our bodies AUTOMATICALLY DEVELOPED from a certain point -but "WE" did not SELF-develop.
That is to say... No individual human (or any previous physical life form) historically had ANY input into the state of anything -much less themselves -(except for very limited education of future generations after they were born. Even collectively, humans are just reaching the point of having meaningful input into their own state or environment.
We awake as individuals -into already-extremely-complex-and-capable bodies and minds.
WE (any and/or all "I") did not actually develop in a step-by-step process -only our physical bodies did -after the universe was initiated and the elements, etc., were formed.

Furthermore... present nature answers every specific psychological need of an original. It is exactly what one would do. (Birds build nests, humans build houses and cities, God built a universe.)
Not only would it be impossible without a psychology/self -as such grants the necessary perspective and capability, but it is is also indicative thereof -PROOF when referenced against greatest possible simplicity.

So that's a "no" then, is it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In my worse moment, I'd call to:

No one. I'd just experience. I almost killed myself before and never cried out to a deity during that, not even "mama". What matters most to me is my connections. Life truly is a web of relationships, human and non- human.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No one. I'd just experience. I almost killed myself before and never cried out to a deity during that, not even "mama". What matters most to me is my connections. Life truly is a web of relationships, human and non- human.

What are your personal values?

 

[Jimmy]

Love covers all

 

[Etritonakin]

So that's a "no" then, is it?

Literal mud -no -no proof for that -but for the rest, the proof is all around us -and in us.

That which is is that which was -it is not new -only its configuration -therefore we can continue to reverse-engineer it. We can't just get to the big bang and give up -it's just getting to the good part.
We are actually proof of the necessity for -and natural occurrence of -creativity.
You can't just skip from step one to step three.

It is possible for the various aspects of creativity -of a self -to be rather augmented or diminished here or there, but that which makes such possible always existed in simple form -and all aspects are interdependent -so must all move forward together -though with some elasticity.