What makes your God a God?

[loverofhumanity]

What makes my God a God, as opposed to what is generally thought of, or specifically thought by others?

Because of implications carried by the word "God", I prefer either to not use that word for "my" "God", or use different terms. I like Robert Spitzer's term, "Unconditioned Transcendent Reality".

What makes that which I recognize as "God" to qualify for that name or Title is, first of all, "First of All". Firstness. What was first. Also, "natural". I don't know what that means other than that It is not something strange or unlikely, but totally normal. As I continue to read arguments for the existence of God and arguments for the so-called qualities or attributes of God, I am beginning to believe in those that claim God is timeless and spaceless. It might also be thoughtless, by which I mean It does not need to think because off that might be thought It is Itself. Like saying God does not have love, God is love, I would say God has no thoughts, God is thought. Also, contrary to beliefs of others, even atheists, in my beliefs, God is not something to be worshipped. I have reasons for that that take a lot of explaining, so I will leave it at that; maybe later I'll elaborate, but not now.

Do I myself believe God is love? I believe: it doesn't matter. What difference does it make. It's obvious God does not seek suffering. Being an ultimate being, if He sought suffering, it would be ultimate suffering. That doesn't exist, so suffering is not something He is very interested in. If He wanted suffering, there would be a lot more in the world. What about happiness? I won't elaborate on that, but I think He probably does want people to be happy, much happier than we are now, "exceedingly" happy.

In a nutshell, I consider God to be God because It is the First Thing and brought into existence everything that exists. Everything that exists. Which reminds me of "existent, non-existent, and beyond both". Other attributed attributes make Him neither more God nor less God.

Really liked your insights and the way you explained God. I can only add that ”I know nothing”. I know God exists but it is beyond mortal mind to comprehend God.

 

[blü 2]

Funny. I think the fourum is acting funny.
Bit that I believe this is real, doesn't by believing that cause it to be real. That would be magical thinking and if that works, God exist. But you wouldn't accept that.

You must have a clear definition of "real" to be able to say that. What is your definition?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You must have a clear definition of "real" to be able to say that. What is your definition?

It doesn't matter, because the defition of word doesn't mean that its referent is a fact.

We can go through cause and effect for experiences versus the idea that experience sometimes correspond to objective reality,
And we can even do David Hume on cause and effect, if you like.
But the short dirty version is this:
Real obejctive reality causes you to have experiences.
Not epistemologically fair obejctive reality causes you to have experiences.

The experiences are the same, but there are 2 possible causes for it and you can't know which one it is, because your experiences are the same for both versions of obejctive reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’d have to say a lack of physical attributes, as it permeates infinite space. Some of the things in space have physical qualities but on the whole my God is beyond physical.

Well, my God as objective reality is so, because it is real, fair, orderly and knowable.

 

[blü 2]

Funny. I think the fourum is acting funny.
Bit that I believe this is real, doesn't by believing that cause it to be real. That would be magical thinking and if that works, God exist. But you wouldn't accept that.

You must have a clear definition of "real" to be able to say that. What is your definition?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You must have a clear definition of "real" to be able to say that. What is your definition?

That which is believed to correspond with objective reality itself.
And now that defintion is a fact, because that I write it, makes it magically by writting it an objective fact.

 

[blü 2]

That which is believed to correspond with objective reality itself.

For me "real" means found in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

There are no absolute statements, no absolute truths, about that world or its contents or states of affairs, but all the progress of science comes from observing it and discovering, describing and seeking to explain what is observed.

Human existence is dependent on the world external to the self. It's where our parents are found, our air, water, food, shelter, society, transport, medicine, football team, the materials of life.

Did you ever try that experiment I recommended to you where you go without air for a couple of days? I think you'd find it persuasive that reality is really out there,

And now that defintion is a fact, because that I write it, makes it magically by writting it an objective fact.

There are no absolute statements therefore there are no absolute facts. But there are degrees of reliability that allow us to depend on that world out there for our survival and breeding.

 

[blü 2]

I type this post, therefore I am.

If you were not, it would indeed be difficult for you or any other non-existent entity to type anything, let alone your particular post, yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For me "real" means found in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

...

Yeah, but the presumes that you can trust your senses as such.
And for philosophy which you also use nobody has in effect ever solved the evil demon.

The we you claim is not even given. So if you want to doubt, learn to doubjt your own presumptions and not just everybody else's. That is it, skepticism it not you dount everybody else. You also doubt yourself, if you want to doubt and you do that with religion. Now do it with your own world view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you were not, it would indeed be difficult for you or any other non-existent entity to type anything, let alone your particular post, yes.

Well, that I experince this, doesn't mean that I am in the real world, I could be a Boltzmann Brain. So could you as weird as that might be.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but the presumes that you can trust your senses as such.

You trust yours, within the bounds of experience, and I trust mine likewise. There's nothing substantial to argue about.

And for philosophy which you also use nobody has in effect ever solved the evil demon.

You mean Maxwell's Demon? He (or she, or it) is best imagined as a hardworking angelic figure, I'd say.

The we you claim is not even given. So if you want to doubt, learn to doubjt your own presumptions and not just everybody else's.

You know very well I'm conscious of what I assume. And I reiterate that you act exactly as if your assumptions were the same.

That is it, skepticism it not you dount everybody else. You also doubt yourself, if you want to doubt and you do that with religion. Now do it with your own world view.

I've already reminded you I think there are no absolute statements.

And since we've said all this before, I think I'll leave it there,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You trust yours, within the bounds of experience, and I trust mine likewise. There's nothing substantial to argue about.

You mean Maxwell's Demon? He (or she, or it) is best imagined as a hardworking angelic figure, I'd say.

You know very well I'm conscious of what I assume. And I reiterate that you act exactly as if your assumptions were the same.


I've already reminded you I think there are no absolute statements.

And since we've said all this before, I think I'll leave it there,

Descartes' evil demon and as for a science version; Boltzmann Brain.

Now that you assume something doesn't make it true.

 

[Kathryn]

By what process did your God determine that there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

I guess you need to ask him or her.

 

[Kathryn]

If you were not, it would indeed be difficult for you or any other non-existent entity to type anything, let alone your particular post, yes.

So it this entitity real or not?

 

[blü 2]

I guess you need to ask him or her.

[He]'s notorious for never appearing, never saying and never doing, so I must necessarily address myself to others ─ those who claim to know [him] ─ when it comes to questions.

 

[Kathryn]

[/QUOTE]

[He]'s notorious for never appearing, never saying and never doing, so I must necessarily address myself to others ─ those who claim to know [him] ─ when it comes to questions.

interesting - He appears to me. Meanwhile I have asked you a question which you have not answered.

 

[firedragon]

What makes your God a God?​

Singular.
Necessary being.
Not begotten and begets not.
There is nothing like God.

That's my worldview.

 

[firedragon]

I am a pantheist (God and the universe and all existence are One) and panentheist (God encompasses all, yet transcends all).

That's interesting. Can you explain how God could be Pantheistic and Penentheistic? Or are you simply explaining the allowance in the Hindu philosophy? Which would be fine I am just querying.

Thanks in advance.

 

[F1fan]

interesting - He appears to me.

In what form does it appear?

And how do you determine if it is real versus imagined?

 

[blü 2]

I have asked you a question which you have not answered.

Apologies ─ I missed it.

As far as I know, the only manner in which supernatural beings, including of course gods, are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

But since this view is not universal, I'm curious about God as others may see [him]. [He] usually is described in imaginary terms, like omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, eternal &c, instead of say male, 6 ft 4, brown hair, bipedal, four limbs each with five digits &c &c. So it seems fair to interrogate these views, with such questions as the one I put to you ─ how can a being be said to be omniscient if we don't know how [he] knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?