Who is God?

[Sriram]

In all cultures God has been stated as being within ourselves. We however have a natural tendency to look outwards. The images that people worship are of cultural origin.

[Enki]

Yes, no reason to believe what?If you can't answer the question, who or what is God or at least have a stab, I really don't know what you are doing on this thread.

I've already answered that but for those with limited understanding, here goes again. I have no reason to believe and therefore don't believe in any of the myriad of gods which have been/are a part of human society. Get it?

If, as an example, I take the god of the old testament, I find he looks like a man, he is carnivorous, he is not omnipotent, he changes his mind, he spreads dung on people's faces, he even had a bear kill 42 children for calling a prophet, baldy. My take on this is that this god is no more than a human creation.

Your own response, I believe, was 'the Ultimate', which explains nothing of any substance. Indeed, if I follow your own description of 'ultimate'(
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate) it leads me to the word 'absolute'(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy) which simply says " In theology, the term is also used to designate the supreme being.". In other words we're back to square one and I'm none the wiser.

The question "What is it you believe / don't believe comes from Chomsky and he is as far from stupid as it gets.

You'd have to give me the exact source of your quotation for me to comment on this.

You did say you don't believe in God or gods ( however you construe them) because they are human constructs. Do you disbelieve all human constructs or do God or gods have a particular quality?

I suggest constructs are attempts at explaining various psychological or social phenomena in the absence of any objective means of substantiating them. As such they may well have beneficial or detrimental effects and may change as more evidential knowledge is gained. Whether they are true or not would depend on objective evidence supporting the construct. In the particular case of god(s) I have no reason to think otherwise than that they are the creative inventions of human beings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In all cultures God has been stated as being within ourselves. We however have a natural tendency to look outwards. The images that people worship are of cultural origin.

I can't believe in a God who is a giant man only, nor do I focus on a few bits of the Old Testament to the exclusion of the other bits and the new testament. In fact, attacking God's character isn't actually argument for the non existence of a God.

In terms of the Wikipedia entry on the Ultimate it does make a note on the original direct translation from the Latin which comes out as "not dependant on" and that I believe is something to think about I.e. what in reality can be truly independent  or fundamental.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can't believe in a God who is a giant man only, nor do I focus on a few bits of the Old Testament to the exclusion of the other bits and the new testament.

So you cherry pick to suit your preferences then.

In fact, attacking God's character isn't actually argument for the non existence of a God.

No-one makes an argument for the non-existence of god. That’s not what atheism entails or requires.

In terms of the Wikipedia entry on the Ultimate it does make a note on the original direct translation from the Latin which comes out as "not dependant on" and that I believe is something to think about I.e. what in reality can be truly independent  or fundamental.

Perhaps you should trouble yourself with establishing first that there needs to be something other than the universal itself that is “truly independent or fundamental”.

Good luck with it though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So you cherry pick to suit your preferences then.

No-one makes an argument for the non-existence of god. That’s not what atheism entails or requires.

Perhaps you should trouble yourself with establishing first that there needs to be something other than the universal itself that is “truly independent or fundamental”.

Good luck with it though.

Again what is it about the universe that is necessary?

[Nearly Sane]

Again what is it about the universe that is necessary?

You haven't established that anything needs to be you have just asserted it, and bhs hasn't stated the universe is.

So your question is entirely specious

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again what is it about the universe that is necessary?

No idea. Not my problem. It’s not something I’ve said, and it’s not my job to find an answer to that.

You on the other hand have asserted that the universe is necessarily contingent on something other than itself, and your only attempt so far to justify that claim is the fallacy of composition.   

If that’s all you have, we’ll leave it where that dumps you: dead in the water.   

[Sassy]

As I don't believe in any god, the question of who is God doesn't really arise. The best answer I can give is that I note the various interpretations various religions/faiths give to their gods. I look upon them all as human constructs which may or may not benefit the people involved. However, for me, they have little significance.

Enki,

What is water tight regarding your beliefs or disbeliefs?


Why use the name Enki?
i

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No idea. Not my problem. It’s not something I’ve said, and it’s not my job to find an answer to that.

You on the other hand have asserted that the universe is necessarily contingent on something other than itself, and your only attempt so far to justify that claim is the fallacy of composition.   

If that’s all you have, we’ll leave it where that dumps you: dead in the water.

You seem to be saying that the default is that the universe has been around forever. Why should that be the default?

[Gordon]

You seem to be saying that the default is that the universe has been around forever. Why should that be the default?

Be careful with all that straw, Vlad: put the matches in the kitchen drawer!

And stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Be careful with all that straw, Vlad: put the matches in the kitchen drawer!

And stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

What theory of the necessity or contingency of the universe doesn’t have a burden of proof?

[Gordon]

What theory of the necessity or contingency of the universe doesn’t have a burden of proof?

I'd imagine that all theories do: the one you are advancing involves there being a 'necessary agent', so it is for you to accept that burden of proof and show your workings - but you surely must already know this by now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd imagine that all theories do:

Then why all the guff about burden of proof?

[Gordon]

Then why all the guff about burden of proof?

Because you are advancing one particular theory, so the burden of proof (so as to demonstrate that your pet theory is sound) is yours - and yours alone.

But you know this of course - so stop wumming.

[Enki]

Enki,

What is water tight regarding your beliefs or disbeliefs?


Why use the name Enki?
i

From about the age of 8 or 9 I watched people praying in school and found it most peculiar. They seemed to be praying to some imagined entity, although at the time I didn't think of it in those terms. I simply ignored it as rather meaningless as far as I was concerned. I really haven't changed that much throughout the years. If people wish to worship something it's up to them, but it has always remained of little significance for me.

I don't really have any watertight beliefs. I regard that as a double edged sword in that it can lead to positive things such as great determination and singlemindedness or it can lead to negative things such as extreme prejudice and narrow mindedness. I simply try to go where the evidence or lack of evidence leads. If the evidence changes then I hope that I can change too.

As far as my name goes, it is actually the name of an ancient Sumerian god. However I chose it because it was short and it was the name of my brother in law's dog. He is well read and has an extensive library in comparative religions. (I refer to my brother in law, not his dog  .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You seem to be saying that…

Why is it that whenever you begin a post with these words the person you’re addressing has never said what follows?

…the default is that the universe has been around forever.

Like this.

Why should that be the default?

Dunno. It’s not something I’ve said.

So anyway, back to YOUR assertion that the universe must be caused by something other than itself. Any news yet on your justification for it other than the fallacy of composition?

Something?

Anything?

No?

Thought not.

[jeremyp]

Why is it that every topic involving Vlad and God devolves into a discussion of his failed argument from contingency?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is it that every topic involving Vlad and God devolves into a discussion of his failed argument from contingency?

How has the argument "Every contingent thing is contingent on something else" failed?

[Gonnagle]

I am God

Okay! okay! would you settle for God like

Gonnagle

PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.

[Gordon]

Wecome back Gonners - great to see you back here again.

[jeremyp]

How has the argument "Every contingent thing is contingent on something else" failed?

That's not an argument: it's an assertion. In fact it's a tautology since "contingent" implies "contingent on something else", by definition.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be saying that the default is that the universe has been around forever.

There you go again - unable to contemplate that time might not be constant and unilinear. The very notion of 'forever' is predicated on the notion of constant and unilinear time. If time isn't like that (as most credible theories of physics suggest) then the whole concept of 'forever' is for the birds.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There you go again - unable to contemplate that time might not be constant and unilinear.

So what if it is? How does that affect contingency?Or the moment by moment dependence of something fundamental?

[Outrider]

So what if it is? How does that affect contingency?Or the moment by moment dependence of something fundamental?

Because if our experience of time in a strictly unilinear direction leads to the perception of cause and effect, but reality is in fact not constrained to only move in that direction, what we perceive as effect may occur before the cause. Or, in a more abstract conceptualisation, if our perception of cause and effect is due to our restrained transit through what is actually a static 4-dimensional 'block' of space-time, there is no cause or effect, all the elements merely 'are', and we are imposing the idea of 'cause' and 'effect' onto a framework which actually has neither.

Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. Lunchtime, doubly so.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because if our experience of time in a strictly unilinear direction leads to the perception of cause and effect, but reality is in fact not constrained to only move in that direction, what we perceive as effect may occur before the cause. Or, in a more abstract conceptualisation, if our perception of cause and effect is due to our restrained transit through what is actually a static 4-dimensional 'block' of space-time, there is no cause or effect, all the elements merely 'are', and we are imposing the idea of 'cause' and 'effect' onto a framework which actually has neither.

Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. Lunchtime, doubly so.

O.

I think somebody has floated the idea that there is no such thing as contingency. Difficult to see how that doesn't undercut science and methodological naturalism