Half of the last thread was complaining about my shitty OP image, so let's try again. We clarify what we mean by "God" when we ask the casual question "Do you believe in God?" By the end, it should not be a meaningless question.
>List ALL attributes
>List all relevant faiths
>Clarify comprehensibility and whether it's able to be defined
Polytheism makes a God of branched ideologies that could be put into just one, but they didn't.
And just to clarify, the christian God (at least) is depicted as just one, BUT he can be percieved in infinite different ways still being him.
So I'd say that calling christianity a monotheistic religion is 99% true. Take it with a grain of salt.
GOD IS THE BIGGEST POSSIBLE GESTALT CONTAINING ALL SMALLER GESTALT, YET [HE] IS NOT THE SUM OF [HIS] PARTS BUT IS ALSO DEFINED THROUGH THE RELATIONS OF THE PARTS WITH ONE ANOTHER
An entity that is beyond human comprehension in terms of power and knowledge and intelligence that created the Universe and can also consciously thinks and also, maybe exists outside of space and time.
I'm an atheist and that is how I think of as the concept of god.
>Are non-material entites like thoughts and imaginations part of the universe?
> I'd rather say that God is all that is to avoid confusion.
It just adds confusion, usless you are saying the Universe is a conscious, thinking being.
I'd rather say that I can not comprehend the nature of the universe but I certainly view it in an organistic way, it is the largest possible organism. It being a conscious thinking being is tricky though as there is no other in relation to which it could comprehend itself as it is the only existing entitiy.
I find it fascinating for someone to define the Universe as an organism that has thoughts. This is very distinct from any form of Pantheism I have read about but fair play to you if that is what you believe.
God is the seed and the ground which it is planted.
God is the ever watchful Eye.
The ever guiding voice.
The all knowing Teacher.
Really? I suggest you read what you said....
>For every gradable quality, God is the entity that is as good as possible at all of them
That clearly indicates 'good' is a gradable quality separate from god and that god is defined by being at the top or completely beyond the scale of gradable good.
If on the other hand you are defining good as being something that 'comes from' or is defined by god and god as something that is the ultimate good then, you might notice, that your definition is entirely circular and is therefore not a definition with meaning at all.
Good is a human invented word in the human constructed English language for something that describes the human concepts of righteous or moral or ethical or virtuous.
What an alien intelligence thinks has nothing to do with it and we are free to label the alien being good or bad or whatever we choose as good or bad The very concepts of 'good' or 'bad' have EVERYTHING to do with human opinion, indeed, that is how they are defined and how they were created in the first place.
Wasn't here for the other thread, but I'll just post my opinion here. God is whatever a person does not fully understand and has no way of explaining. Ancient people ascribed the seasons, crops, and the origin of humans from gods, because they had no way to explain it. Now, we understand the most of the basic concepts of the universe, and so can make better explanations than just gods. However, we still don't understand things like what happens after a person dies, or why the universe is expanding faster when it should be slowing down. The latter example is commonly explained with dark energy, but it's a theory so full of holes that you may as well say "god does it" and you would be at about the same place.
Heres a nice definition from lit back when it had religious discussion
honestly this is pretty good, it implies non-existence by its weak case for existence but all and all its pretty good.
No kidding. How could Got be real (encompassed by reality) when reality is a product of him?
>mfw Western theology
okay yeah cool
But seriously. If God can even have actual (rather than hypothetical or imagined) properties, if he "be"s, would exist. Thus doesn't stop being true just because it's a sin to say so.
Given the size of the universe, there may very well be sapient extraterrestrials that fit your description. But I don't think that's what your average pew-filler has in mind when talking about God.
What are you even talking about. The point is that the property "exists" cannot be truthfully applied to God, except in the most figurative sense, because existence is predicated upon God.
>In medieval disputes over the nature of God, many theologians and philosophers (such as Thomas Aquinas) held that when one says that "God is good", God's goodness is only analogous to human goodness. John Duns Scotus argued to the contrary that when one says that "God is good", the goodness in question is exactly the same sort of goodness that is meant when one says "Jane is good". That is, God only differs from us in degree, and properties such as goodness, power, reason, and so forth are "univocally" applied, regardless of whether one is talking about God, a man, or a flea.
You basically said you were though. If you think that every atom in the universe is constantly upheld by God, then it means god knows absolutely everything that happens at any point in space-time, and this essentially means that we don't have free will.
>Also, God is not an intelligence, except figuratively.
Why do you have these discussion with anons? The points you profess can only ever be accepted or justified as a point of dogma by a faithful Orthodox. There can never be any agreement unless one of them becomes orthodox or you leave it.
>Because God represents himself as Father.
And yet he has no properties that we can conceive? Or he's only "figuratively" father? Why can't we just use as literal language as possible, then?
If you're going to talk about God hypothetically, then you have to set certain conditions. If there are not conditions, well then we might as well just not even debate this at all, because atheists don't even affirm God to begin with. But if they hypothetically do, then we have the hypothetical conditions.
Because God isn't an autistic analytic philosopher
Because we're not talking about classes of things. A family, for instance, is an icon of the Trinity, but there isn't some Trinity "class" of things that all partake Trinity.
If you are skyping with someone, and they kiss the screen (much how we kiss icons), it is not because the screen is the same class as you.
I was refering to the iconography part. That whole part about measuring its value by how well it represents the -truth- and the great fear of mistaking representations for the truth, even to the point of avoiding 3D pictures is very in sync with the thoughts of Plato and the forms even if it does not use literally the same terms.
There is a massive different between *representing* something (iconography) and *partaking* of something (forms). We are all icons of God at all times, for instance, but we don't partake of "Godness" except in Holy Communion.
No. Do you think an icon of the Virgin Mary is "partaking" of her? It's like your face on skype, or in a mirror. It's not "partaking" of you, it isn't communing with you, it is merely representing you.
>Do you think an icon of the Virgin Mary is "partaking" of her? It's like your face on skype, or in a mirror. It's not "partaking" of you, it isn't communing with you, it is merely representing you.
Of course it is, if it was not partaking in it there would be no image at all or say that on an elephant.You cannot represent something without communing with it.
Yeah, see, now *that* statement is Platonist. And while I respect Plato came close to the Truth in many cases, I am not a Platonist. To me, communing is to actually share a body. A reflection of you is not actually part of your body, and is therefore not partaking of it.
I reject it from the Christian conception of kοινωνία, which is corporeal. To state otherwise is distorting the whole thing, it would be like calling abolition of copyright laws, communism.
As an Orthodox Christian, I am neither idealist nor materialist. The material is very real, and so is the spiritual. The material without the spiritual is carnal, but with the spiritual it is corporeal (sometimes the West does not make a distinction between the carnal and corporeal).
Just partaking of the Spirit is not enough for communion (or else panentheism would be the same as pantheism) anymore than just partaking of the carnal is.
I cannot accept Plato because he hates life on some level, he sees the material as repulsive and something to be done away with. Even if I weren't a Christian, I'd reject that for the same reason Nietzsche does.
>He doesn't make any argument for it, he just presents a revelation to a youth.
Yeah lets just pretend neoplatonists like Plotinus and the like never existed and wrote well reasoned justifications of it.
Still do you think its legitimate to use your personal sense of decency as the measure of all truth?
I think they did, and I think it eventually developed into philosophical idealism, with Hegel was the ultimate culmination of it all.
>Still do you think its legitimate to use your personal sense of decency as the measure of all truth?
Well I'm Burkean in a way, and I think Hume proved that we all do anyway. But have you ever read Notes from Underground?
Understanding that it's foolish to try to supplant all sentiment by reason, doesn't require one to take a position of skepticism (in Hume's case, it made him very suspicious of critiques of conservative tradition and morality based purely on reason). The only reason Hume's philosophy isn't fully compatible with Christianity is because he begs the question on miracles.
>The only reason Hume's philosophy isn't fully compatible with Christianity is because he begs the question on miracles.
Not really his theory on how beliefs are generated along with empiricism is pretty hostile to Christianity.
observer that can be treated as a function independent of spacetime and who's interaction could be modeled as a function of spacetime.
Think gravity or universal force and add a similar but sentient concept
Meh, in modern times god doesn't even need to be sentient. Anything that cannot be explained by the laws of physics are seen as gods work. Unknown is the god, just like how it has always been.
In the end, it is nothing but circlejerk whose definition of god is less wrong.