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 71 by 2ndRateMind]

h huh. But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

You've given the abstract axiom you've admitted is just a figment of your imagination the name "God". The word "god" is not a name, it's just a job description - like carpenter, or shepherd.


You've also given your imagined entity/axion/god gender and number - which makes me suspect your imaginary friend is really the single, male, biblical Jehovah/Yahweh/Whatever … which is a name.


Jehovah is most certainly the name of a lowercase god - it's existence has never been verified however, so we are safe in expecting that it's as mythological as any other ethnic deity - but the biblical god is NOT God with a capital G. That claim is patently false.

[William]

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

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


William: So do you agree then that without imagination, change brought about in the real world through Human thought, is simply not possible?

Imagination is vital.
Perhaps the real world isn't about belittling imagination but faulting what is being imagined and made real through human invention, much of which is made possible through scientific processes, first imagined and then manifested in the real world.

Zzyzx: 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.


William: When imagination is belittled to such extremes, I think it is a decent thing to speak up in its defense. Even dictionary definitions show how belittled the word has become by not acknowledging the vital importance of imagination in relation to human progressiveness.

Zzyzx: Does imagination get a child to the hospital in emergencies?

William: Imagination made that possible. Where do you think the idea for hospitals and vehicles and the need for speed came from? People imagined such a world and then set about building it. That is GOD in action...a major way in which GOD communes with this reality through human beings.

Zzyzx: Can one pay the rent and electric with imagination?


William: Imagination set up these systems and helped make the ideas manifest as real.
It always begins with the function of the imagination, and this is one of the things which shows substantial difference between humans and other animals.

Zzyzx: What has imagining gods to do with human accomplishment?

William: Some simply require it in order to get about accomplishing. See our discussion in another thread on this subject;
Link:


Zzyzx: 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.

William: Who has been arguing differently?


Zzyzx: 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.

William: Some people imagine that if they can convert theists into non-theists, they can help create a better world. They then spend copious amounts of time and effort investing in that fantasy.
Indeed, most of our decisions in the real world can be traced back to the processes of human imagination.

Zzyzx: When they attempt to encourage others to take up their imaginary constructs, I challenge the claims, stories, threats, and/or promises.

William: Like I say. Any time you want to go head2head on my claim that the Earth is a living self aware intelligent creative entity which is a GOD in its own right, I am more than willing to engage.
So far I have not encountered even one non-theist who has ever been able to convince me to turn from being a theist.

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

William: I will continue to do so. Although we obviously have very different understandings as to what that actually means.
Imagine that!
Re 'afterlife' the same process of creativity through individual imagination manifests the individuals reality experience - only - from reports of those who have OOBEs, NDEs and Astral Travel skills, what is imagined is instantly manifested and most individuals appear not to realize this is the process they are going through, in that realm.
In many ways, it is a great device for truer justice than anything in this reality.

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 46 by Don McIntosh]

Is my particular belief such that the evidence (e.g. evidence for the resurrection of Jesus) is much more probable if my belief is true?

That makes very little sense as written.

I think it makes plenty of sense. If it aids understanding, forget about my beliefs for a moment and consider a belief of your own, say, the widely held belief (E) that all of life evolved from a common ancestor.

Is the evidence cited in support of E (comparative anatomy, the fossil sequence, genetic sequences, biogeography, etc.) actually more probable than not, given the truth of E? Conversely, does the evidence make E more probable than it would have been otherwise? If so, then it should count as good evidence for E. Is the evidence cited in support of E more probable than on any other theory yet proposed to explain that evidence? If so, then it should count as better evidence for E than for rival theories.

And we are still only talking about belief. You have offered nothing outside your own head that can be examined independently.

No, that's not correct. When I mention "evidence" I appeal to publicly accessible data. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus that means historical data, specifically: the widely attested apostolic testimony that Jesus had been buried in a tomb and had subsequently appeared to them following his death by crucifixion; the birth of the early church, in Jerusalem, on the preaching of the resurrection, and in the face of violent persecution; and the remarkably sudden, complete conversion of Saul of Tarsus, formerly a leader in the earliest efforts to destroy the Christian movement, based on his testimony (for which he later proved willing to die) that Christ had personally confronted him on the road to Damascus.

And I suggest the notion of "probability" should not come into the determination of "God".

In a sense, I agree. God as defined is the only metaphysically necessary being; thus God exists necessarily. The rest of us are contingent beings whose existence depends upon him. I only use the language of probability so that we can examine the question in terms you prefer, i.e. things which "can be examined independently."

Now if you are suggesting that God himself is not a physical datum that can be objectively examined, well, you would be correct. Virtually no one supposes that God is a finite physical object in the first place. But that would hold just as true for your favorite scientific theory as for the existence of God. No one can see God any more than they can see gravitation or common ancestry. But God, like your favorite scientific theory, does explain quite a bit.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 71 by 2ndRateMind]

But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

As a former Christian, I reject this claim of yours. I had faith, and yet no God ever "confirmed his presence in manifold subjective ways".

Fair enough. I respect your testimony. Nevertheless, it is entirely contrary to my own experience.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Okay...and so, is this the beginning and end of this discussion, between you and I? Surely from your own point of view, what I've said must be false. You said that once one comes to faith, God confirms his presence. This is something you say you believe is true. So then, by sheer default, what I said must be false.
Or is my testimony considered "true" by yourself (not just respected)?

I am sure for you, your experience, as you relate it, is absolutely true. And for me, as I relate it, my experience is absolutely true. Yet, they appear to differ, and have led us down different paths on this pilgrimage we call life. So, how to account for that? It could happen that in future discussions, on various topics, we come to some understanding of why that may be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 71 by 2ndRateMind]

uh huh. But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

You've given the abstract axiom you've admitted is just a figment of your imagination the name "God".

Interesting interpretation of what I said. I do not recall dismissing God as 'just a figment of my imagination'. Rather, I was trying to provide a method, sympathetic to the post-modern human predicament, by which one might come to belief, and know of His existence.

The word "god" is not a name, it's just a job description - like carpenter, or shepherd.

In Christian theology, at any rate, a god with a small 'g' is any idea of any alleged god. God with a capital 'G' is the actual God. It is both a 'job description' and an affirmation of His reality.

... the biblical god is NOT God with a capital G. That claim is patently false.

If you say so. And I actually think you have a argument to make, even if, thus far, you have not made it, only asserted it. And an assertion is not an argument.

Best wishes, 2RM

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by 2ndRateMind]

But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

As a former Christian, I reject this claim of yours. I had faith, and yet no God ever "confirmed his presence in manifold subjective ways".

Fair enough. I respect your testimony. Nevertheless, it is entirely contrary to my own experience.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Okay...and so, is this the beginning and end of this discussion, between you and I? Surely from your own point of view, what I've said must be false. You said that once one comes to faith, God confirms his presence. This is something you say you believe is true. So then, by sheer default, what I said must be false.
Or is my testimony considered "true" by yourself (not just respected)?

I am sure for you, your experience, as you relate it, is absolutely true. And for me, as I relate it, my experience is absolutely true. Yet, they appear to differ, and have led us down different paths on this pilgrimage we call life. So, how to account for that? It could happen that in future discussions, on various topics, we come to some understanding of why that may be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Can both be true at the same time? (God confirms and does not confirm his presence). Also who said anything about "absolutely" true? You say your experience is absolutely true...so 2RM cannot be wrong regarding the topic of discussion?

[2ndRateMind]

You say your experience is absolutely true...so 2RM cannot be wrong...?

I have made mistakes in the past, I admit. But it is vanishingly rare, these days!


Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 71 by 2ndRateMind]

uh huh. But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

You've given the abstract axiom you've admitted is just a figment of your imagination the name "God".

Interesting interpretation of what I said. I do not recall dismissing God as 'just a figment of my imagination'. Rather, I was trying to provide a method, sympathetic to the post-modern human predicament, by which one might come to belief, and know of His existence.

Yours is a Pinocchio god. You present nothing but an axiom you claim provides a better quality of life if accepted. At times, however, you shift to describe a living being as if your axiom has turned into a real God. All this of course without justification.


You create a marionette of your own design and then pretend that it has come to life. The only evidence you can provide that any of this is true is that it works for you. You are obviously able to overlook the strings that make your marionette god dance, others see them quite clearly and the hand they are attached to.



Tcg

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 88 by Tcg]

Hmmm. I actually think there are approximately as many conceptions of God as there are people. And I don't see any reason why you should think my conception of my existing God any less valid than your conception of your non-existing God. But perhaps you have some kind of objective evidence for your point of view, that I am unaware of?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Zzyzx]

.

I actually think there are approximately as many conceptions of God as there are people.

Agree

And add: This is in addition to 'conceptions of gods' promoted by the world's 4000 religions and their plethora of 'denominations'.