Worthy conceptions of God

[Typoz]

Agreed, but we need to be careful not to just conceal our lack of understanding in a form of words that doesn't make sense!

I think there's a definite communication problem.

In my daily life I tend to be somewhat of a mystic, the way I grasp reality isn't easy to express. However my instinct is that it may be a rather different mode of experiencing the world to your own. That in itself can make any such discussion somewhat of a minefield of points which can be analysed and dissected without ever uncovering the intended meaning.

 

[Stephen Wright]

Isn't the end goal perfection? i.e. Isn't that the point of learning - to be (or approach) perfection? If so, why do we not go directly there (to perfection) and skip the learning (in imperfection, which is the source of so much suffering and evil)? Could an omnipotent God not have created us perfect from the start?

I think that "perfection" is seen as a goal is because of Metaphysical Materialism's hold on our minds. A material object can be perfected. An unselfish love must be communicated and received. An agent can perfect a material object and take credit for direct causation. The agent can move and polish material, in a physical cause and effect manner. If an agent endeavors action - the results can be perfect when restricted to a material result.

I ask you to view multiple generative levels and take as scientific thinking; that as one can understand physical science from the changes to material objects from cause and effect's two-step process; equally it should be seen that information science is based on changes to information objects from a three step math modeled process. Signal -> Channel -> Receiver

"Perfect" has a whole new set of meanings. Communication is not a direct cause, as would be a physical transfer. Loading an intentional message (an end) and releasing it to a channel with a set destination, requires its own context, apart from physical forces. (the preceding is the same old IR, informational realism, rant)

I say this - here, in this thread - because of its application to gods and transcendent loves. If, there is a loving god - then she doesn't have any "love" to use as a causal physical substance. Unselfish love is a state of information and it must be COMMUNICATED.

Now in this context - what counts is not god's "perfectness" but her ability to error-correct messages of love. People are not magically "good" - they are just better receivers for love in their environments.

I am fighting both the magic of materialism and the magic of religion. There is a rational way to parse the subject.

 

[Typoz]

I am fighting both the magic of materialism and the magic of religion. There is a rational way to parse the subject.

But not fighting the magic of information science? It seems to me you exhange one set of problems for another by investing heavily in present-day metaphors of current science and technology..

 

[Jim_Smith]

I think a lot of these questions are a result of confusion caused by the (in my opinion) flawed conception of God promulgated by some organized religions.

There is another way of conceiving of God that is also found in many organized religions, but in their mystical rather than mainstream traditions ....

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html

These quotes from: an ancient text, an advanced meditator, a near-death experiencer, a spirit communicating through an evidential mediums, a materialist atheist , Christian scripture, Christian theologians, a Native American medicine man, a Jewish Scholar of the Kabbalah, and a Sufi philosopher, all describe something very similar:
...
Bernadette Roberts said:

So here begins our journey to the true center, the bottom-most, innermost "point" in ourselves where our life and being runs into divine life and being - the point at which all existence comes together. This center can be compared to a coin: on the near side is our self, on the far side is the divine. One side is not the other side, yet we cannot separate the two sides. If we tried to do so, we would either end up with another side, or the whole coin would collapse, leaving no center at all - no self and no divine. We call this a state of oneness or union because the single center has two sides, without which there would be nothing to be one, united, or non-dual. Such, at least, is the experiential reality of the state of transforming union, the state of oneness.​

​

There is much more at the link.

 

[David Bailey]

In my daily life I tend to be somewhat of a mystic, the way I grasp reality isn't easy to express. However my instinct is that it may be a rather different mode of experiencing the world to your own

Obviously if I didn't feel any of the same, I wouldn't spend time here. However, part of the problem (for me) is that the total emphasis on love, can become awfully cloying - I mean I can imagine myself in a group of joyous friendly people, but we would be doing something too!

David

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Sorry, no I wasn't referring to your ideas (though I did quote from your post). There was something of it in the post from Sci, but really it is just something which seems to crop up at random intervals, and from random people.

I suspect that really it comes from trying to reject a stranglehold or monopoly that religions seem to have exerted on ideas in this field. But rather than make a clean break, I feel that there's a tendency for those outside of religion to take broken fragments of ideas from within religion and whine about them. That's what I mean by it not being a constructive approach.

Sorry Typoz but I think that's an unfair criticism of what, to me, is a perfectly valid question: How many of God's supposed qualities - Pure Good, Prime Mover, Omnipotence, Personal, All Knowing, Pure Love, Divine Simplicity, Universal Intellect, etc are reconcilable?

I recall after the Holocaust there was a writer who said how could he consider his belief valid when those who went through experience he did not had lost their faith, but also how could his dismissal of God be valid when some who went through the same experience came out the other side with their faith intact?

I think my posts, in total, are an exploration of such a question.

 

[Stephen Wright]

But not fighting the magic of information science? It seems to me you exchange one set of problems for another by investing heavily in present-day metaphors of current science and technology..

Typoz, I hope you address my point about the objective nature of observable love in the environment of people.

Granted - that there is a Pandora's box of issues in the parsing of information science, especially since it is so new. I would point out the irony, in that you use the "magic of electronics and the internet" to post your feelings in the infospace that is this website. The Information Age is a dramatic change in global relations. I would argue that we are "mature" about the magic of information science to the point of sophistry, as a culture. Especially under 30 individuals; they expect information systems to do magical things, and think it all, without doubt, natural. In 50 years of use, IT is accepted without myth, much more than the myth ridden contexts of materialism and fundamentalism.

The information science of metaphors is semantics. I am focusing more on pragmatics, and specifically the context of math-modeled measurements of order, organization, intent, purpose, productivity and aesthetics. These subjects are phenomena in our environments that deserve scientific observation and understanding. I don't give a shit about metaphor. I am pointing to a core worldview - one where we are not each brains that are fountains of consciousness, as much as the eyes of the universe observing itself.

 

[oleo]

Perhaps being human and all its frailties is it's own reward. Would a beautiful sunset or a transcendent piece of literature, move one to the depths of feeling, if perfection had been achieved?

 

[erickh]

I see the material universe as some what mechanical in nature in that it out-pictures what we carry on the inside. Many people aren't open to truly internalizing spiritual teachings so the material universe is the school of hard knocks. If we think the world is a messed up place its only because the mass consciousness of mankind is out of whack. If a Supreme Being would swoop in and correct all ills, how would that benefit in the long run those who need to see their consciousness out-pictured in the material universe? It would actually abort the purpose of the Earth.

The Earth is like a sandbox no permanent damage can happen here. It's main purpose is for the raising of consciousness of spiritual beings.

 

[beyondmortality]

Sorry Typoz but I think that's an unfair criticism of what, to me, is a perfectly valid question: How many of God's supposed qualities - Pure Good, Prime Mover, Omnipotence, Personal, All Knowing, Pure Love, Divine Simplicity, Universal Intellect, etc are reconcilable?

I recall after the Holocaust there was a writer who said how could he consider his belief valid when those who went through experience he did not had lost their faith, but also how could his dismissal of God be valid when some who went through the same experience came out the other side with their faith intact?

I think my posts, in total, are an exploration of such a question.

I agree your line of questioning is valid. When the church promotes the benefits of Christianity, they invite debate. In a world filled with suffering and the obvious absence of god, the Christian promises of everlasting life, joy, peace, and unconditional love raises skepticism.

The Christian mandate to convert drives the debate. Christians use a scripted narrative and "witnessing" as tools to convert. While staying on script keeps the message consistent, it creates a burden of proof that they can't satisfy. Even if an individual is happy and successful, there's no way to prove it's god's doing. And one individual's happiness does not solve the problem of evil.

 

[Typoz]

Sorry Typoz but I think that's an unfair criticism of what, to me, is a perfectly valid question: How many of God's supposed qualities - Pure Good, Prime Mover, Omnipotence, Personal, All Knowing, Pure Love, Divine Simplicity, Universal Intellect, etc are reconcilable?

But who came up with that list?

It certainly wouldn't be one which I would put forward.

That's what I mean about those borrowing from religions and then criticising those religious ideas. I guess that's why I'm outside of religion, though I do have a cultural background which may affect my outlook, but I try to not be defined by it.

However Sciborg, it wasn't intended to be a personal attack on your approach, but more of a long term phenomenon involving many different people. For example I came across this among my own previous posts:

I've always considered the idea of "condemning God" to be misplaced use of terminology. What is actually taking place is that someone postulates an idea of what God might be like, and then condemns their own idea. In itself, that is a positive thing, it is how we move forward, by replacing our obsolete misconceptions with more appropriate ideas. None of this has any effect on the reality. If we have the idea that the moon is made of green cheese and then blame the moon for being smelly, it is simply a nonsense.

 

[Laird]

I think a lot of these questions are a result of confusion caused by the (in my opinion) flawed conception of God promulgated by some organized religions.

There is another way of conceiving of God that is also found in many organized religions, but in their mystical rather than mainstream traditions ....

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html

​

There is much more at the link.

One of the quotes describes God as "personal". Would a personal God not care about the suffering and evil in His/Her/Its Creation? I don't see how this "mystical" conception of God gets around the problems raised earlier in the thread, in particular the age-old problem of evil.

And if you wish to excise or ignore that quote, then how could an impersonal God have created persons, with all of the nuance that entails?

 

[Laird]

P.S. Jim, how do you interpret the personal, bright white light of Western NDEs? Is this the same God as described in your link?

 

[Laird]

I think that "perfection" is seen as a goal is because of Metaphysical Materialism's hold on our minds. A material object can be perfected. An unselfish love must be communicated and received. An agent can perfect a material object and take credit for direct causation. The agent can move and polish material, in a physical cause and effect manner. If an agent endeavors action - the results can be perfect when restricted to a material result.

I ask you to view multiple generative levels and take as scientific thinking; that as one can understand physical science from the changes to material objects from cause and effect's two-step process; equally it should be seen that information science is based on changes to information objects from a three step math modeled process. Signal -> Channel -> Receiver

"Perfect" has a whole new set of meanings. Communication is not a direct cause, as would be a physical transfer. Loading an intentional message (an end) and releasing it to a channel with a set destination, requires its own context, apart from physical forces. (the preceding is the same old IR, informational realism, rant)

I say this - here, in this thread - because of its application to gods and transcendent loves. If, there is a loving god - then she doesn't have any "love" to use as a causal physical substance. Unselfish love is a state of information and it must be COMMUNICATED.

Now in this context - what counts is not god's "perfectness" but her ability to error-correct messages of love. People are not magically "good" - they are just better receivers for love in their environments.

I am fighting both the magic of materialism and the magic of religion. There is a rational way to parse the subject.

I really want to be able to respond to you, Stephen, and I feel unkind saying this, but I don't mean it unkindly, it's just the way it is: I struggle so much to understand your meaning as you express it through your style of writing that I don't understand what you're saying enough to have anything constructive to say in response. Sorry, man, but thanks for offering your thoughts. :-/

 

[Obiwan]

But who came up with that list?

It certainly wouldn't be one which I would put forward.

That's what I mean about those borrowing from religions and then criticising those religious ideas. I guess that's why I'm outside of religion, though I do have a cultural background which may affect my outlook, but I try to not be defined by it.

However Sciborg, it wasn't intended to be a personal attack on your approach, but more of a long term phenomenon involving many different people. For example I came across this among my own previous posts:

Interestingly perhaps, Silver Birch said god, or The Great Spirit as he referred to it, wasn't 'personal'.

 

[Typoz]

Interestingly perhaps, Silver Birch said god, or The Great Spirit as he referred to it, wasn't 'personal'.

I'm always disconcerted by this name (Silver Birch), for me it evokes one of the key figures during the (coal) miners strike in the 1980s. I understand that isn't who you mean, but I'm not greatly familiar with the other context.

 

[Obiwan]

I'm always disconcerted by this name (Silver Birch), for me it evokes one of the key figures during the (coal) miners strike in the 1980s. I understand that isn't who you mean, but I'm not greatly familiar with the other context.

I don't recall anyone called Silver Birch from the miners' strike lol
Silver Birch was the name adopted by a purported communicator through the trance mediumship of Maurice Barbanel. I'm not saying the writings are evidential, but I do find them interesting, sensible and internally consistent.

 

[chotki]

How many of God's supposed qualities - Pure Good, Prime Mover, Omnipotence, Personal, All Knowing, Pure Love, Divine Simplicity, Universal Intellect, etc are reconcilable?

Well, in classical philosophical theism, most or all of these traits can not only be reconciled, but once properly defined and set in order one logically necessitates the other. A powerful example of a systematic demonstration of interconnected attributes can be found in this lecture by philosopher Edward Feser, who defends the 'Aristotelian Proof' for God and shows how certain characteristics naturally follow from the argument:

Or listen to his most recent pre-publication demonstration of the argument here, selecting the file "Why Believe in God?"

https://thomisticinstitute.org/tracks/

 

[Laird]

Interesting video. If I might sum it up in a limerick?

To say there's no end to "the why"
Is to utter a disproven lie.
The answer, my friends
Is that God's where it ends:
That causeless cause we can't deny.

 

[Brian_the_bard]

Religions that teach that God is a father who will help and reward you if you are "good" and punish you if you are "bad" creates a lot of confusion.

I want to clear something up here because Christianity teaches that we have all sinned and that salvation, therefore is by the grace of God through faith and has nothing to do with being good because we can never deserve salvation. That old stereotype is something that used to be taught to children and thankfully isn't anymore AFAIK!