Which god is God?

[SallyF]

Many, many cultures have imagined God in many, many ways. Certain cultures declare everyone else's idea of God to be false.

How do we objectively determine whose version of God is NOT false?

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 58 by 2ndRateMind]

So, my advice is simply to imagine ...

My point EXACTLY.

People IMAGINE "God".

Including the genocidal, racist, homophobic, sexist Jehovah/Yahweh of the Bibles.


It takes faith to turn imagined "Gods" into reality, and that "reality" is NEVER shown to be anywhere other than inside the minds of the faithful.

[2ndRateMind]

It takes faith to turn imagined "Gods" into reality, and that "reality" is NEVER shown to be anywhere other than inside the minds of the faithful.

Well, if you start out by imagining the most perfect being possible, and then somehow come to believe that entity exists, you get to be rewarded by (subjective) evidence that He does indeed exist. God does not thrust Himself onto people who do not want Him, but He will be there for you as and if and when you do.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why all the imagining?

Would it not be preferable to deal with life on the basis of what is actually known of the real world?

Imagination is wonderful and/or entertaining; however, it doesn't seem to be a sound basis for life decisions.

Are you content with the way the real world is?

Note the difference between:

1. deal with life on the basis of what is actually known of the real world
vs.
2. content with the way the real world is

Note that the real world is not ideal and an imaginary world is not real.

Note: definition of imaginary: existing only in the imagination or fancy; not real; fancied: www.dictionary.com

Do you realize that imagination is always the first part of the process of change?

Imagination is also likely to be the first part of the progress of evil. So what?

Perhaps the real world isn't about belittling imagination but faulting what is being imagined and made real through human invention.

I trust that astute readers understand that deal with life on the basis of what is actually known of the real world is presented as an alternative to dealing with life through imagination. Perhaps not all will comprehend, but is not my duty to assist those who choose to misunderstand or misconstrue.

Does imagination get a child to the hospital in emergencies? Can one pay the rent and electric with imagination?

What has imagining gods to do with human accomplishment?

Some human accomplishments start with imagination applied to the real world. Nearly all human accomplishment is made through actual effort in the real world. Until and unless imagination is put into ACTION in the real world it is just fantasy.

Those who wish to use imagination as their basis for real world decisions are welcome to do so. I do not choose to join them. When they attempt to encourage others to take up their imaginary constructs, I challenge the claims, stories, threats, and/or promises.

Let us know how it works out to live in imaginary lives (or afterlives)

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 63 by Zzyzx]

It may be pertinent here to consider the philosopher's definition of knowledge, as 'justified, true, belief'.

In science, the belief tends to follow the justification. We believe things because we design and perform experiments that rule out alternative explanations, and only when thus justified do we believe the surviving explanation to be the 'truth'.

But in religious faith, the belief precedes the justification. Once the supernatural existence of the Deity is accepted, only then does God provide us with the subjective evidence that we are correct to put our faith in Him. And so religious 'truth' is arrived at by a completely different method than in science.

It may seem an unsatisfactory system to the non-believer inculcated with scientific method, but that is just the way it is. And there may be a good reason for that; unless one loves God, the objectively proven existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, however benevolent, is likely to be very much resented by those who would prefer to live out their lives without faith or religion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Zzyzx]

.

It may be pertinent here to consider the philosopher's definition of knowledge, as 'justified, true, belief'.

Notice the term TRUE.

What is the value of knowledge that is not true?

How can claims of knowledge of invisible, undetectable, proposed, supernatural entities be shown to be true?

In science, the belief tends to follow the justification.

Okay

We believe things because we design and perform experiments that rule out alternative explanations, and only when justified do we believe those explanations.

More accurately, science is a METHOD of investigation based upon observation, forming hypothesis, testing hypothesis, reaching conclusions, publishing results for critique / criticism / verification by others; modifying / correcting / replacing when necessary.

It is a self-correcting method designed to reduce, as far as possible, incorrect findings and personal bias. Notice that if errors are found in scientific works, they are found by scientists " not theologians.

But in religious faith, the belief precedes the justification.

EXACTLY " reach the conclusion FIRST, then look for evidence to support the pre-ordained conclusion.

That is a textbook example of several logical fallacies:

Jumping to conclusion " Drawing a conclusion without taking the needed time to reason through the argument.

Confirmation Bias " the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories

Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) " the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

Wishful thinking " a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason

Once the supernatural existence of the Deity is accepted, only then does God provide us with the subjective evidence that we are correct to put our faith in Him.

Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) " an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

Special pleading " a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption

The Appeal to Heaven: claiming to know the mind of God who has allegedly ordered or anointed, supports or approves of one's own country, standpoint or actions so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible

It may seem an unsatisfactory system to the non-believer inculcated with scientific method, but that is just the way it is.

That is NOT just the way it is for those who favor reasoning from verifiable evidence and those who favor critical / analytical thinking over emotion.

And there may be a good reason for that; unless one loves God, the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, however benevolent, is likely to be very much resented by those who would prefer to live out their lives without faith or religion.

OR, unless one already believes god tales they are likely to resist attempts to convince them to believe god tales.

Increasing numbers of people in the US are optioning out of religion (though still far behind several European nations in that regard).

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 65 by Zzyzx]

Like I said, the 'knowledge' one comes to through religion is different in quality from the 'knowledge' one comes to through science. That is why it is referred to as 'faith', rather than 'fact'. But as EF Schumacher once noted, in 'A Guide for the Perplexed', the slenderest knowledge that can be attained of the highest things is more valuable than the most complete knowledge of the lowest things. Religion, theology, and the philosophy of religion, all concern themselves with the highest of all things, God Himself, where scientific method has no traction or purchase, and is concerned mainly with purely physical phenomena.

However, it would be accurate to suppose, I think, that intellectual rigour and inexorable reason apply in both fields, equally. It is simply that the appropriate methods for arriving at 'truth' differ between the domains.

So far as the existence of God goes, it may be helpful to consider this not so much a demonstrably provable fact, or stern article of faith, but more in the nature of an axiom on which to ground one's philosophy of life, or world view. Accept the axiom that God exists, and you get the justification for one way of life. Reject it, and you get the justification for another, different, way of life. Having tried both, I can confirm that the axiom is better accepted than rejected, but one can only realise this if one has the grounds to make the comparison.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 66 by 2ndRateMind]

Like I said, the 'knowledge' one comes to through religion is different in quality from the 'knowledge' one comes to through science.

We are in PERFECT agreement there ...!


But may I please ask you to demonstrate that your god/axiom/whatever exists anywhere other than in your own head?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 66 by 2ndRateMind]

Like I said, the 'knowledge' one comes to through religion is different in quality from the 'knowledge' one comes to through science.

We are in PERFECT agreement there ...!


But may I please ask you to demonstrate that your god/axiom/whatever exists anywhere other than in your own head?

Axioms have a subtle ontology. Take Euclid's idea that parallel lines never meet. Accept that, and you end up with the plane geometry we were all taught at school. Reject it, and you are liable to end up with a spherical geometry. I am not sure either is 'wrong', per se, but the results one thus derives are significantly different. So, does the axiom exist anywhere but in our own heads, as an unspoken but explicit assumption? And does that matter? And if so, why so?

I am, incidentally, encouraged by your acceptance of the idea that things may differ in quality. My own route to faith was to consider the qualitative dimension of worst-worse-bad-neutral-good-better-best, and and think that since the qualitative dimension existed at all, that implied some entity at the peak of the apex. That entity I call God; infinitely good, utmost best. It's not a very scientific theory; science doesn't deal very well with qualitative distinctions, only measurable, numerical quantities, but it worked for me, at the time.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

Axioms have a subtle ontology. Take Euclid's idea that parallel lines never meet. Accept that, and you end up with the plane geometry we were all taught at school. Reject it, and you are liable to end up with a spherical geometry. I am not sure either is 'wrong', per se, but the results one thus derives are significantly different. So, does the axiom exist anywhere but in our own heads, as an unspoken but explicit assumption? And does that matter? And if so, why so?

The Euclidean axiom is true for the purpose it was devised: geometry of the plane. As long as we are aware of the initial conditions for our axioms, they are good guides. In the geometry of God we often base our ideas on the geometry of man and so he bites us, bullies us, buries us or beckons us to believe in him.

I think if we were debating a REAL God here, we would very soon know. He is everything to everyone, and consequently nothing.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 68 by 2ndRateMind]

... that implied some entity at the peak of the apex. That entity I call God ...

You have IMAGINED an entity at the imagined peak of an imagined apex, and you've called this imagined entity "God".

Which is possibly okay if you - and everyone else on the planet with some idea or another of what they call "God" - is acknowledging that they are playing a game of pretend in their heads with imaginary things. One is free to do that right here.


One is also free to point out that due to a common absence of evidence for ALL gods, one god - including yours - is as false as another.


BTW does your axiom/entity have a name ?