Is God an Intellectual Conundrum or a Necessary Truth for Moral Temperance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrmason
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the complexities of defining God and the implications of belief systems on intellectual discourse. Participants explore the challenges of articulating belief in God without sounding zealous, as well as the nuances of atheism and agnosticism. The conversation highlights that the concept of God often becomes ambiguous, leading to debates about whether God is a necessary construct in understanding the universe. Some argue that God serves as a catalyst for exploring existential questions, while others contend that the universe can be understood without invoking a creator. The idea that science has limitations in addressing spiritual matters is also discussed, with some asserting that personal experience and introspection are essential for understanding truth. Ultimately, the dialogue suggests that the existence of God, whether as a literal being or a conceptual framework, remains a significant topic that influences human thought and societal dynamics. The impact of belief in God on culture and morality is emphasized, indicating that the discussion transcends mere philosophical inquiry and touches on fundamental aspects of human existence.
  • #31
Originally posted by Dx
i like this answer, very intellengent and humble its the same as the age 'ol question which we no one can prove but I will provide for you now. You don't see air but we breathe it, how do you know this is air you breathe. You BELIEVE! Same with GOD, you can not see HIM but you know he's always here. HE loves us for HE gave his only son for us. Some things can't be explained, maybe they don't want to or maybe one day the mysteries will unfold so until then "never stop believing!" because its air your breathing now?

The Universe is "real"...isn't it?

Might it be a "living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of It's parts?" Maybe.

Might It have components of "consciousness" and "spirit" (yet to be defined themselves)? Possibily.

If, however, the Universe were a spiritual, conscious and eternal BEING...it wouldn't need an outside "God" as It's "Creator"...nor would It (the Universe) need to be called "God" Itself.

We -- as a species with our evolving brain that thinks in metaphors -- love our STORIES! Problem is, after we make them up...we BELIEVE them!

Hence, the one about the "God" who gave is "son" so we can all get off the hook with regard to the consequences of our own actions. This story appeals to a lot of people for obvious reasons.

However, if it IS a "cause & effect" Universe...then "consequences" are part of the package. Thus, a conscious attempt to take "right action" to get "good results" seems a better path to SPIRITUALITY than the "primrose" one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I don't think of God as the outside creator. I think more that the universe is in a sense part of him and that He is involved in the care and running of the universe as well as continuing to create. The consciousness and spirit we've talked about in other similar threads all apply here. He, God is the universe but more than just the universe.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Royce
I don't think of God as the outside creator. I think more that the universe is in a sense part of him and that He is involved in the care and running of the universe as well as continuing to create. The consciousness and spirit we've talked about in other similar threads all apply here. He, God is the universe but more than just the universe.

I don't think there needs to be "more" than Everything That Is.

Why can't we just view the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts?

Let's give the Universe Its PROPS!
 
  • #34
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I don't think there needs to be "more" than Everything That Is.

Why can't we just view the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts?

Let's give the Universe Its PROPS!
The only problem with your description is that you make it sound like an automaton, as if everything were on automatic pilot or something, in which case it entails "some substance" -- which, may or may not be "special" -- but doesn't really involve the "faculty of being." How can you refer to a "conscious Entity," without referring to the properties of that entity or, the qualities of "character" of that entity?

How is it possible that the human body, being the "higher life form" that it is, can take the form that it has, without experiencing the level of consciousness that it has? Meaning, why shouldn't the same rules apply (at the very least) to a "conscious Entity" called the Universe? Don't you think it should also have an "identiy" associated with it?
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only problem with your description is that you make it sound like an automaton, as if everything were on automatic pilot or something, in which case it entails "some substance" -- which, may or may not be "special" -- but doesn't really involve the "faculty of being." How can you refer to a "conscious Entity," without referring to the properties of that entity or, the qualities of "character" of that entity?

How is it possible that the human body, being the "higher life form" that it is, can take the form that it has, without experiencing the level of consciousness that it has? Meaning, why shouldn't the same rules apply (at the very least) to a "conscious Entity" called the Universe? Don't you think it should also have an "identiy" associated with it?

Look ...if I say the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's having a very complex Experience...isn't that the start of the Being's "identity"?

Consciousness is -- IMO -- awareness of self, of others, of context, of experience, of meaning. Only the Universe Itself can "know" what It is, what It is experiencing, and what It is making it all mean .

I say the Universe is out to have an Experience...a real COMPLEX one, as I have said, that includes the lifetimes of Everything that It gives rise to (past/present/future). If It has a "central question" it might be "What can I create THIS time?"...with regard to each incarnation. Then It goes about RE-ASSEMBLING Its "parts" to create new settings (physicality), new experiences (consciousness) and new emotion-and-meaning-laden memories (spirituality).

I most certainly do NOT think It's on "automatic pilot": It -- and Its PARTS (us included) have INTENTION ...which is the "joker in the deck". To shift to another metaphor, the Universe is like a "sea of potentialities" wherein INTENTION impinges on the "lynchpin" of randomness, causing certain things to manifest while others do not.

That's why the Universe is not "all-knowing" like "God": It hasn't a clue (well, maybe a CLUE...but not much more) about how things will "turn out". It doesn't know what YOU are going to DO next minute or next year...nor what results you're going to get when you do! That's what makes it INTERESTING...I would think.

But "identity"?! What are you looking for?
 
  • #36
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Look ...if I say the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's having a very complex Experience...isn't that the start of the Being's "identity"?
And yet a machine can accomplish just as much as you require here, without having to be conscious. This is no better an answer than science would require.


Consciousness is -- IMO -- awareness of self, of others, of context, of experience, of meaning. Only the Universe Itself can "know" what It is, what It is experiencing, and what It is making it all mean .
No, the Universe can not know these things by itself, unless it were a part of an even "greater consciousness," which truly is conscious.


I say the Universe is out to have an Experience...a real COMPLEX one, as I have said, that includes the lifetimes of Everything that It gives rise to (past/present/future). If It has a "central question" it might be "What can I create THIS time?"...with regard to each incarnation. Then It goes about RE-ASSEMBLING Its "parts" to create new settings (physicality), new experiences (consciousness) and new emotion-and-meaning-laden memories (spirituality).
It still sounds like you're speaking of nothing more than that which is "mechanistic." And why would it do any of this stuff, if it didn't have a clue, as you say below? It therefore must allude to a "higher intent" then.


I most certainly do NOT think It's on "automatic pilot": It -- and Its PARTS (us included) have INTENTION ...which is the "joker in the deck". To shift to another metaphor, the Universe is like a "sea of potentialities" wherein INTENTION impinges on the "lynchpin" of randomness, causing certain things to manifest while others do not.
But how did the joker get there? By random? And how can there be any "real intention" without the higher proclivity to experience it, such as with us human beings? Meaning, shouldn't the Universe have an even greater capacity to understand its intentions than us?


That's why the Universe is not "all-knowing" like "God": It hasn't a clue (well, maybe a CLUE...but not much more) about how things will "turn out". It doesn't know what YOU are going to DO next minute or next year...nor what results you're going to get when you do! That's what makes it INTERESTING...I would think.
If it hasn't got a clue then it ain't conscious! So what it sounds like you're saying is that the only "true knowing" -- which, according to you (I believe?) -- was "bestowed" upon us by this "conscious Entity," is capable by us "human beings?" Who are not even sure that they're capable of knowing? And yet there's no doubt that "greater truths" do exist. But where do they come from? And how do they get "acknowledged" (by whom) before they get "filtered" down to us?


But "identity"?! What are you looking for?
Something that at least has the same capabilities that I have, but far greater ... even to the point to where I couldn't begin to understand, except perhaps, with reference to myself? Whereas if you look at what I'm saying here, it isn't altogether different from what you're saying, except that I'm giving the Universe, i.e., in the form of God, a lot more credit. Have you ever heard the song, "From a Distance," by Bette Midler? Which in effect is saying, What do we really know about God? except that He's there, in His full capacity as God and, that "out of respect" He keeps His distance ... Otherwise there would be no means by which to acknowledge Him -- i.e., from the standpoint of our "not knowing" He's there which, is a widely held view (even by Atheists).

Whereas the one point of view acknowledges the human heritage which has been passed down in the name of religion, and the other one doesn't.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet a machine can accomplish just as much as you require here, without having to be conscious. This is no better an answer than science would require.
Actually, I'm not looking for a "better answer than science would require." Believe me, if I could come up with an "answer" about consciousness that science ACCEPTED...I'd be as happy as Pi!

No, the Universe can not know these things by itself, unless it were a part of an even "greater consciousness," which truly is conscious.
Why do you say this. Does that mean that "God" would have to
be part of an even 'greater consciousness,' which is truly conscious" than "His"? Can't the Universe "simply" be councious of ITSELF...and all Its moving parts?

It still sounds like you're speaking of nothing more than that which is "mechanistic." And why would it do any of this stuff, if it didn't have a clue, as you say below? It therefore must allude to a "higher intent" then.
I said the Universe doesn't have a clue (or possibly just a clue) as to how things are going to turn out...or what's going to manifest from It's "body" of "possibilities"...the Sea of Potentialities!

And why does It need a "higher intent" than living Its LIVES?

But how did the joker get there? By random? And how can there be any "real intention" without the higher proclivity to experience it, such as with us human beings? Meaning, shouldn't the Universe have an even greater capacity to understand its intentions than us?
I probably should have said "wild card"...due to a wild cards "ability" to be/do "anything".

My point is that randomness and intention are PART of the BODY of the Universe...part of the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the System as a WHOLE. No-ONE had to "put" them there. The Universe is just a Creature made up of this and that...like anything else.

If it hasn't got a clue then it ain't conscious! So what it sounds like you're saying is that the only "true knowing" -- which, according to you (I believe?) -- was "bestowed" upon us by this "conscious Entity," is capable by us "human beings?" Who are not even sure that they're capable of knowing? And yet there's no doubt that "greater truths" do exist. But where do they come from? And how do they get "acknowledged" (by whom) before they get "filtered" down to us?
Surely you know of folk who are proportedly conscious, yet haven't a clue (a joke). Seriously, I have never said "bestowed". Why would I when I believe that consciousness is part of the PACKAGE?! If there are "Universal Truths"...we COME TO THEM via our own THINKING.

And, maybe, as some might say, we MAKE THEM UP!

I DO believe that the natural forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe tend toward LIFE...and that life tends toward greater degrees of SENTIENCE over time...until that "Final Day" (in this particular Cosmic Incarnation) when ALL SENTIENCE comes together in a COSMIC WHOLE -- an ALL-KNOWINGNESS OF WHAT IT HAS DONE ... the BIG COLLAPSE into the Final -- then PRIMAL -- Singularity!

Something that at least has the same capabilities that I have, but far greater ... even to the point to where I couldn't begin to understand, except perhaps, with reference to myself? Whereas if you look at what I'm saying here, it isn't altogether different from what you're saying, except that I'm giving the Universe, i.e., in the form of God, a lot more credit. Have you ever heard the song, "From a Distance," by Bette Midler? Which in effect is saying, What do we really know about God? except that He's there, in His full capacity as God and, that "out of respect" He keeps His distance ... Otherwise there would be no means by which to acknowledge Him -- i.e., from the standpoint of our "not knowing" He's there which, is a widely held view (even by Atheists).
I don't get what you're saying. Sorry.

Whereas the one point of view acknowledges the human heritage which has been passed down in the name of religion, and the other one doesn't.
Who does what...and to whom?
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, I'm not looking for a "better answer than science would require." Believe me, if I could come up with an "answer" about consciousness that science ACCEPTED...I'd be as happy as Pi!
Then why shouldn't the answer that Science gives suffice? It sounds like the two outcomes aren't altogether different? Neither do you provide for a higher sense of purpose or intent, which is pretty much the way Science already views it. And yet, of course I am only speculating here, it may be necessary to establish the nature of consciousness, before Science will acknowledge God?


Why do you say this. Does that mean that "God" would have to
be part of an even 'greater consciousness,' which is truly conscious" than "His"? Can't the Universe "simply" be councious of ITSELF...and all Its moving parts?
No, I'm implying that God is the greater consciousness itself or, that the greater consciousness is a manifestation "of God." Similarly I can say, "I" am the greater consciousness, which is "truly" conscious of myself and all "my" moving parts. Shouldn't the Universe be endowed with at least the same capacity, perhaps even far greater, since "I" am only a drop in the bucket?


I said the Universe doesn't have a clue (or possibly just a clue) as to how things are going to turn out...or what's going to manifest from It's "body" of "possibilities"...the Sea of Potentialities!
And yet Science has pretty much already established this, whether Science wants to cosider consciousness a factor or not. It still doesn't belie any intent, which can only be achieved through establishing a "higher consciousness."


And why does It need a "higher intent" than living Its LIVES?

I probably should have said "wild card"...due to a wild cards "ability" to be/do "anything".

My point is that randomness and intention are PART of the BODY of the Universe...part of the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the System as a WHOLE. No-ONE had to "put" them there. The Universe is just a Creature made up of this and that...like anything else.
And yet what does intent imply? In which case I still don't see what it has to do with intent. You know, the greater the design the "greater the intent?"


Surely you know of folk who are proportedly conscious, yet haven't a clue (a joke). Seriously, I have never said "bestowed". Why would I when I believe that consciousness is part of the PACKAGE?! If there are "Universal Truths"...we COME TO THEM via our own THINKING.
And yet these people are without intent, meaning how will they ever get anything accomplished, in "their lives?"


And, maybe, as some might say, we MAKE THEM UP!
No, I don't "think" so. Otherwise they wouldn't be universal.


I DO believe that the natural forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe tend toward LIFE...and that life tends toward greater degrees of SENTIENCE over time...until that "Final Day" (in this particular Cosmic Incarnation) when ALL SENTIENCE comes together in a COSMIC WHOLE -- an ALL-KNOWINGNESS OF WHAT IT HAS DONE ... the BIG COLLAPSE into the Final -- then PRIMAL -- Singularity!
I have no idea of what you're talking about here? Sorry.


I don't get what you're saying. Sorry.
That we can't come to know that God exists, except from the standpoint of not knowing He exists, in other words "as Atheits."


Who does what...and to whom?
And, while I don't agree with most religions, I do agree with the premise upon which they were founded. In which case I have no problem accepting God (i.e., a far greater intelligence to the Universe than I), whereas you do.
 
  • #39
OPINION

Can anyone give me his opinion on this text:
http://www.yvrutyspot.com/BONJOURIMGODH.html

It takes 4-8 minutes to read.

Please if you are deep religious believer, don't read that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
I go through phases of listening to Christian radio and television. I enjoy hearing the anecdotes of believers concerning events that they believe required the direct intervention of the Christian God. The claims they make range from the modest ("I had the flu so bad this last week that I didn't think I would be able to attend church today, but praise God, I am feeling better and here I am.") to wildly extravagant ("My finger was torn off in an industrial accident. I prayed about it, and the Lord grew me a new finger, and He even put a wedding ring around it, and--oh hallelujah--the ring looks like it must be worth more than the original one that got crushed in the stamping mill.")

If there really is a personal God, I would like to challenge a believer to pray thusly:

Lord, infinite in Your power and goodness, I petition You today on behalf of those who seek to do Your will in evangelizing the nations. I have seen that some of my brethren who give witness to Your existence on Internet discussion pages have sometimes spelled words wrongly, and have sometimes used incorrect grammar and punctuation. Lord, I know that You wish to be glorified in the highest possible way, and I ask You to guide those who write on Your behalf, such that from this day forward they will make no errors in their use of their language when they are writing on behalf of You. Thank you, and amen.

Any takers?
 
  • #41
I'm a taker Janitor.

And I appreciate your good/wise humor:smile:

Thanks
 

Similar threads

Are Kant, Freud, and Sartre Truly the Pillars of Unbelief?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Does Perception Equal Reality in Epistemology and Identity?
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
How Can the Philosophies of Great Physicists Guide Us Beyond the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Belief and Epistemological Criteria of Being
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K