the philosophy of god(s)

back to main back to religion site index site map

Thoughts about God from 01.01.2011:
_______________________________________

What is the difference between a pantheist and an atheist? As a pantheist, I see divinity or a spiritual aspect as part of all things universally. As an atheist, I assume the world is energy and particles and nothing more. But, these views are compatible if only both positions look at the nature or properties of the ways in which the energy is constituted and disposed.

There is evil in the world- perhaps not real evil but merely self-centeredness. There is untold suffering and this can not be denied. But, without it, there could be no contrast and no hope for something better. Where I see no separate being that is god, as the atheist, I see a god-nature or a god-like property in all things. There is no room here, however, for an argument of any sort.

Just faith in that all existence is somehow sentient or mental in nature moreso than it is cold and lifeless and without order and purpose. This latter position, which begins the road to nihilism, is easy enough to find oneself on if we stop looking at the little and great things that are so beautifully sublime here amongst the darkness.

One must make some kind of decision about the creativehealth exercise force in nature and the very fact we are here, thinking, creating, loving, and being human. Perhaps it is an accident or perhaps it is part of some infinite self-realizing entity of which we are all part and through which we are all truly connected.

This latter view is the only one I can see that is a viable foundation for pacifism- though I myself stop short of this level of serenity because I am rather attached to some things and people here. This is a horrible thing, this attachment- but what does the pacifist do when a child is being harmeddoctor spywaregusanito tarjeta cumpleano and nothing short of violence will end the harm?

Thoughts about God from 12.18.2010:
_______________________________________

I have been an atheist, an agnostic, and a devout theist at different times in my life. Sometimes I am skeptical of skepticism and other times I think my private experiences are no more than an imagination come to vivid life.

But, more and more, I come to believe that there is something here and it is very good. What can be more evident and clear than the phenomenon we experience when we close our eyes, meditate, or go deep into a shamanistic voyage?

Perhaps none of these things are real, but they appear and feel more real to me than any empirical finding because there is a directness and a fully emotional character to the phenomenon that I/we experience. Perhaps it is the scientific-realist paradigm or the academic atheistic slant that keeps so many intellectuals scoffing at the notion that there is something more than can be observed in public going on here in reality.

Reality is more complex and interesting than our science can see because science can not see inside the mind of even a single human. At the moment, I consider myself a deist and/or pantheist with a rather medieval conception of god but a rather abstract notion of how these properties come to play in a supreme being of which we are all part.

I could be wrong. I do not like to preach for this is not helpful to open minds and for those who blindly follow, it simply misleads and attempts to coerce and control. There can be enlightened philosophy of God and a total abandonment of religion at once.

If you think a good person who doesn't believe in god will be punished, then you offend god in your judgement. Being good is all that matters. What you believe is irrellevant because being good is the supreme form of worship and appreciation for this reality. This is where so many Christians fall so short of being good- by judging and condemning and making rules. This is just ego and self-aggrandizing control mongering.

There are more rewards in reality for the charitable and benevolent atheist than the most faithful believer who condemns and lambasts all those who don't follow the limited dogma of this or that dogma and doctrine.

Older thoughts from 2009/2010:
___________________________________

What the word "god" refers to must be determined before any meaningful conversation can take place about god.

There are potentially infinite ways to conceptualizetyco healthcare spain sl what god is. If god is simply another way to refer to all that exists, then to deny the existence of god would be a logical contradiction and no atheist could deny that god exists. But this wouldn't mean anything because typically, one means god to imply some characteristic of volition or justice in equating god with everything.

If "god" is an anthropomorphic, separate, and willing being that resides in some place called heaven, there is certainly room for doubt, given the lack of any evidence for this type of god or its corresponding ontology.

There are countless shades of god between human-like god and god as everything.

The problem here is that a theist who believes that god is equivalent to the natural world and an atheist who believes that god refers to a man on a cloud would agree if they thoroughly discussed their ideas about god.

When I was in London, I saw a sign on the side of a bus that read "God probably doesn't exist, so...". I wondered, firstly, which interpretation of god they were referring to. Secondly, I wasn't aware of any statistical methods available for god testing. Probability has nothing to say about the existence of something that can not be empirically observed.

Some people think of god as an alien intelligence. Others, who deny the existence of a separate being referred to as "god", still believe that there exists a spiritual nature or realm.

For some, "god" refers not to a specific being but to an intelligent aspect of all reality. If, when referring to "god" one means anything other than "nature" or "everything", there is, in my opinion, no public reason or public evidence for a belief in such an entity.

Because such a being is written about in a book, for example, is no reason to believepase escolar usachsmoking bird naughty little girls in it. Belief in the truth of a book based on the belief that it was inspired by a being that is truly real is the mental equivalent of trying to stand with both feet in the air. God exists so the bible is true. The bible is true so god exists.

I think some atheists would be comfortable, once it is explained properly, with being naturalistic pantheistic theists (god is nature). And, some monotheists would be perfectly happy to be pantheistists who believe, like Atheists, that "there is no god" but that, unlike the atheist, "there is only god". However, if "god" and "nature" are perfectly synonymous, one need not have difficulty imagining an atheist believing "there is only nature".

I am an agnostic. I have been a theist and an atheist and both atheism and theism assume certainty where there can be none. Atheists are arrogant in thinking they have total knowledge of all reality.

When I was an atheist, I was cold and overconfident. Theists are arrogant in thinking their personal experiences or religious teachings reflect an objective reality.

When I was a theist, I was lonely and desperately searching for meaning. Just because you think you hear or see things that others can not, does not necessarily implydescargar doctor divx that they do or do not exist outside of your mind. (Note from 12-24-2010- What is experienced in private and, to some degree and sometimes, in public, can be a basis for belief.

But, nothing necessarily means anything so interpretation is key. Interpretation requires assumptions and these can not be proven. Faith can be derived from emotional and objective experience as well as through private experience).

Perhaps, if we survive long enough, we can create god or we can become so advanced that we become god ourselves. And if these possibilities are actually realized in this or in some other possible universe, we can imagine an intelligent being that has become part of all possible worlds already.

This idea was first put forth by Frank Tipler and constitutes what he calls Omega Point Theory. Such is how some form of god could possibly objectively exist but scrutiny of this idea may reveal that it is no more than religious thinking. If there is some enlightened being that permeates all of reality, then I can imagine it would be appalled at what humans have done to each other in its name. If god is perfect, then god wants nothing.

Given all of these considerations, I find no evidence for the existence of god yet I do not put myself in the position of one who would strongly claim that there is nothing more to reality than empirical science has or can yield. Talking about personal beliefs is religion whereas having personal beliefs that are private is just that; private.

If there is a god, then I have found no conclusive reason to believe in it given the state of the world and it's lack of showing itself. If god exists, then I think god is no more than some kind of pantheistic computer-like mind that is not capable of human concern. If god came down and manifested for all of us to see, I would simply ask "Why don't you do something?". This would simply put god in the place of a superhero. All of this conjecture is fantasy, however, and is meant only to show something. If god exists, then god is a beautiful creative computer. I think there is a creative, self-replicating, self-expressing, computer here called nature. I think it is good. But, I also think there is a lot of suffering. From 2000 | Concepts of God: ________________________________ There are many different conceptions of what god is. Here I have outlined some of the more common notions of god and each view's place in religion, philosophy, and reality. (1) A Personal God: ______________________ This is the God of the Bible, and of most major religions. This God has human qualities and uses various powers to carry out motives as would a human. Any such God I dismiss as nonsensical mythology- nothing more.

"The Sublime Godseed Tree We All Fell From", 2006, by Anthony Peter Iannini

(2) An Intermediate/Abstract God:
___________________________________

This is the God of many thinkers, in various forms. This God is indescribable or describable, but does not have human characteristics and we do not or (maybe) can not know the nature or identity of such being.

This could be anything more intelligent (aliens) or could be an awesome intelligence that we can not comprehend and does not takeservice symantec anythree little girls claptonemployee training anthropomorphic identity.prepago de credito I would liken this to "is there a bright green toaster floating outside the universe?" It is still a  somewhat absurd concept, but has more force than (1).

(3) God as Nature:
_______________________

This is not God in the common sense at all, and is the God that I give the most importance to. This God is nature, or is all substance. While it may be improper to call all substance 'God' this is the God of Spinoza and other philosophers that exemplifies an extremely important concept.

Namely, everything was either created or came into existence. The creation idea is infinite, everything just existing forever works better but still leaves many questions. God, in this respect, is nature, the laws of nature, the underlying (possibly unreachable) microscopic and macroscopic world. Does everything exist? Yes, it seems so. Therefore, I would give precedence to this concept of God.

I feel that all three are hard to define, but (1) is not worthy of speech here (but in Religion). (2) is worthy of some discussion, and is God I feel most philosophers attempted to prove the existence of. Also, (3) is not really God, or a subject under the heading of God, but rather important under the heading of Matter or Existence.

There is no Rational or Logical reason to believe in a god or gods- There are no flawless proofs of the existence of god. Those that seem to undoubtedly prove a god are proved with assumptions, such as the assumption that existence can be a property of something in the mind. Beyond this, reasons for the existence of god are irrelevant.

That god is necessary, that god always was, or that god exists in any way are all based upon assumptions that can only be plausible within the confines of religion. Reason can not prove or disprove god, but to keep things in perspective, neither can reason prove or disprove the existence of a bright green toaster outside the universe.

---

General Arguments for the Existence of God:
_____________________________________________________

Argument from Design:
______________________________

Often, an argument is presented that looks at the present complexity and/or design of the universe and declares that this designed universe or form of life must have had a creator. The argument, most notable presented by William Paley, takes the following basic form:

If you were walking along the road one day and came across a rock, you would think little or nothing of it. But, if you came across a watch, you would think there must have been a creator. In other words, it would seem impossible that the watch came about through some complex combination of naturally occurring metals and other materials.

I find a number of problems with this argument. (1) Evolution does provide for a system in which organization and complexity can arise from less organization and complexity. Assuming a creator leads to complications, such as who created the creator and who created the creator of the creator?

Necessary Existence:
__________________________

This argument states that "God always was and always will be". The same logic can be used in the statement "The Universe always was and always will be", or "Matter always was and always will be".

Argument from Causation:
______________________________

This argues that all causes in the universe, motion etc., must have had an initial cause. In other words, if a particle is moving at +2 seconds after the beginning of the universe and is +5 miles away from some point, then it must have had a spatial-temporal cause at the origin. However, modern physics utilizes the notion of a singularity, in which the laws of physics and math break down to compensate for infinite quantities. Therefore, this is much like the argument from Necessary Existence.

Greatest Being Argument:
________________________________

This is a classical philosophical argument, known most notably as St. Anselm's Argument. A basic version of the argument is as follows:

• Think of the most perfect being
  
  
• Existence in reality is more perfect than existence in the mind only
  
  
• Therefore, the most perfect being must also exist in reality
  
  
• Otherwise, this being would not be the most perfect being

While this argument is interesting, it is highly problematic. Existence in the mind does not infer existence in the real world in the way in which we ordinarily think. Therefore, the most perfect island we can imagine in our minds does not also exist somewhere in space and time- unless we considergirls beautiful one's mental image to be existing in some sense.

Creation Begs a Creator:
________________________________

This argument takes the form, "If anything was created, then there must have been a creator". What this overlooks is a simple problem, the possibility that everything just was, is, and will be. What if the universe just is? It seems as though this conclusion remains within what we can understand, and this interpretation leads to less paradoxes. Ockham's Razor would suggest that, all things considered, we take the least paradoxical solution when we are presented with two possibilities.

Argument from Morality:
________________________________

The argument goes that we have a sense of a highly moral creator because we have in us a highly moral understanding. I think that morality is a by-product of society and contractual understandings of the rights, desires, and wishes of other rational human beings. Morality need not have a divine origin. It is of a higher caliber in the absence of religion, god, or any type of reward or punishment oriented world view.

Argument From Feeling:
________________________________

Some argue that they see, know, feel, or hear god. While this can not be proven or disproven, many people also see, know, feel, or hear things that do not exist. Often, I think people can convince themselves of that which they want to believe, whether it be a false memory, a dream, or an irrational view of the world. It is a part of human psychology to hope, fear, and desire stability, purpose, love, and other such things that many god views provide through religion and their own projections of a human-like, considerate being at some level or another.

"God Forgiving the Devil", 2006, by Anthony Peter Iannini

Possibility and Benefit: ____________________________ Some arguments say that- given the chance of a benevolent god and the chance of the existence of heaven, then what benefit can there be from non-believing? In other words, if atheists go to hell in the small chance that god exists, then why not believe in a god to appease this being and increase one's chances of gaining heaven? I would argue that there are a variety of problems, namely the existence of heaven and hell, the benefit that mankind receives from thoughtful doubt and questioning, and the nature of the probability of the existence of a god, of a benevolent god. God Concept is Universal: _______________________________ This view argues that the idea of god is universal in human cultures, or is innate in the human mind. If any human was born without society's influence, without ever learning about a god, where would the idea come from? That we have innate ideas about god, or anything at all, denies the fact that we learn everything except certain evolutionary mechanisms through our senses.  So, if the idea of god is not innate, then where does it come from? It must come from something in the world around us. People learn of god through their religions, through what they read, hear, and feel. We have not yet talked about the existence of god, but only the way in which god comes to be known.

If 'Uncle Bob' exists when you are born, and like god, 'Uncle Bob' is not visually or audibly or sensorially present, then you would not know of his (Uncle Bob's) existence until you werekingston employment youth serviceadsl isp service told about him, or introduced to him.

Also, the abstract concept of god seems to be an extension of human imagination where unexplained things are concerned. The sun, for example, has been a historical god because of its amazing and mysterious properties. It is only when we explain such an entity that it becomes an average star in the center of our solar system instead of Apollo or Ra.

Can't Be Disproven:
_________________________

Logically speaking, the existence of a god can not be proven or disproven absolutely. If something, by its nature, is unknowable, untestable, unprovable, then it has no basis to be true or false.  However, people often abuse this fact to argue in favor of the existence of such an entity.

Would someone also argue for the existence of the bright green toaster floating somewhere outside our universe? I think not. The toaster argument and the argument that there is a god, from a purely logical standpoint, are the same. One can not disprove the bright green toaster, just as one can not disprove god. What grounds are there to accept that either of these things exist?

---

God Paradoxes:
_____________________

Stone Paradox: If god is omnipotent (able to do anything) can god create a stone too heavy for god to lift? If god can't, then god is not omnipotent, if god can, then god is not omnipotent.

Future Paradox: If god is omniscient (all knowing) then god would know what we are going to do and think in the future, and we are determined because god knows prior to our actions what they will be.

Creator Paradox: If god created the universe, then what created god? What god made god? What god made god's god? And so on for infinity. Therefore, it seems less problematic to accept the view that everything (the universe) just is.

---

Comments About God from 9-25-2010:
____________________________________________

I currently believe god exists in a pantheistic framework. I can not prove this but my own personal shamanistic experiences have led me to this. My concept of god is equivalent to infinite love and creativity. I have no love for religions or religious figures. Jesus, if he existed, was probably an alien.

If there is a god, then it is everything- literally, everything. I am god, you are god, we are god, all animals, plants and the universe itself is god. I chose to believe this because of emotional and private experiential happenings.

I am a deist or pantheist or somethingmusica clasica rusa like that. My understanding of god is as an infinitely complex computer, for how could it not be? All intelligence computes, and the highest intelligences must simply be higher degrees of computers.

An infinite spiritual computer. I can not prove it, I will not argue it as some rigorous formulation, but I believe it at the moment and writing this is the expression of this view. I hope this is the way reality is formed and I hope Karma and justice is built into the system- though there is no reason to form some kind of doctrine or dogma around such views.

New Thoughts About God on 10.22.2010:
________________________________________

What is God? God, for me, is a term that refers to the totality of existence in its substance and form. It is the universal mind of which we are all part. It is the source of creativity and the source of substance.

Whence it came into being to fill the void, it did so, perhaps, ex nihilo or it always was, given that time began at its inception. God is infinite. God is infinitely good and just, I think, and hope, but how could it not be? God is omniscient and omnipresent. God is love, fundamentally.

God is everything, quite literally. Yet, this poses the question of evil being part of god. And, yes, evil is something so it must be part of god and so evil must be part of god as well. This poses a problem. If god is infinitely good, then how could there be any evil? Well, it's just not true that evil things are really evil, they are simply meant to scare you towards god.

Evil is either the minion of God or a rejection of God, given that we all have Free Will. But, God, being omnipotent, could "turn off" all free will at any time unless it choses to never do so as part of infinite goodness.

As much as Good is the minion of God because God does, we assume, control everything in a pantheistic framework. I am not saying this framework is the nececessary condition of reality, but it is the most complete understanding of God that is possible and it is greater to be in reality than just in the mind as Anselm said.

Perhaps God gave portions of itself (himself, herself seem inadequate forms, limiting God to human beings) free will and this allows for evil because it is a choice rooted in self-centeredness.

Now, I understandcams girlskey energy service com god as an infinite spiritual computer, a god computer, or just the computer. How did it get it's parts? The mind may have just wanted to be and I don't know.

An infinite Universal Turing Machine comes to mind and anyone interested in these ideas should read David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality". There may be gods for all kinds of things and one universal god as well. Perphaps there are not, but, again, this is philosophy and not science.

Scientific minds will be repulsed by this writing only because they don't think we should be talking about that which has no empirical basis. Yet,ley regular sociedad informacion crediticia there does seem to be a phenomenological basis for these beliefs and whether or not one takes them to be actual or invented, there is no way to chose.

So, assuming, there is a creative mind at play in the universe and that I have a tiny chunk of this mind to work with (or, perhaps we all have access to the whole thing?), why not write about it?

God is quite awesome in my mind, whether that's where it be or not. In other words, the concept of god, whether it exists in reality or just in the mind, is quite beautiful and elegant. Creation generating spiritual computers that are driven by nature itself, powered by reality, are quite interesting to me.

It is not that I am arguing that there is a god but rather, how could there not be a god? Because, each of us, as minds, are thinking things while we are thinking and this is the only proof one needs.

What would be good for god to do on Earth? Mr. Todd McGee had an idea once that sounded good, we turn all graveyards into parks for kids and Mr. Zinn said we should take care of everyone's children and be free to travel anywhere we want.

Perhaps there is no god, but this, in my view, would be identical to the proposition "Nothing exists at all" and this is obviously not true.