How Do You Conceive of God?

[AussieLachlan]

I haven't done any research on this so sorry if this sounds 'philosophically shallow' lol, but what if god is the mind and it creates the world we perceive along the axis of time. Not sure if there's already a term for this belief, but it's something I think about from time to time. What is the meaning of 'me'? Why is it that everyone is given a single spectacle at birth to see through and create the world around them, rather than two or four - where every little detail from the bud of a flower to the ridges of your palm, is the result of a long chain of development of matter that first started out as a visualisation of the mind. I really believe the essential things in life such as time and sight and thought mean something much more than people think it means, but I don't know what. Keeps my imagination busy atleast haha. Sorry if it's really broad! I'm not very educated on all those big words :S

 

[AussieLachlan]

I find it a difficult task to kind of.. separate labels that humans created for 'things' such as happiness, death, life, cats, from the actual entity they really are. It's weird to think that everything that is known by humanity could be completely different to what it actually is and what it's true purpose is, for example an alien race would have different labels for things and at the end of the day they are all labels. So what are they really? The only thing in common is how the mind sees it

 

[Ren]

I believe there is an essential "thing," and that all things we name and experience as unique objects/beings, including ourselves, are limited expressions of this essential oneness.

Still searching, but this is the closest I have come to describing what I believe:

https://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/spinoza.htm

All quotes are from Spinoza, Ethics, translated by R. H. Elwes.

God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14]

Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner. [i.25.]

Nature does not work with an end in view.For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists… . Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither origin nor end. [iv. Preface]

I see, so you identify as somewhat of a pantheist I feel quite close to Spinoza's vision, also.

Interestingly, he was (most likely) INFJ. I think Ni-doms are drawn to the oneness. Just curious: have you seen the film The Tree of Life?

 

[Wyote]

Spinoza

 

[Ren]

Haha, excellent

 

[Asa]

To those of you apologizing (or making excuse) for your beliefs in this thread: please don't feel the need to apologize for your beliefs about a topic that is so deeply personal. <3

 

[charlatan]

I've sometimes heard people frustrated at the idea of calling nature God, suggesting it's just unnecessary relabeling of terminology, but I actually do think there's a point to it -- God is often thought of as the ultimate reason for all that exists.
If nature contained an explanation as to why things must be as they are, as people like Spinoza thought, then it does play one role God is supposed to traditionally play.

But basically, I think the traditional conception is reasonable enough/I go with that if I have to talk of a God -- it basically answers to the foundations for all that one might seek foundation for... morality, nature, maybe reason itself. The omniscience suggests a being who can be perfectly rational, the all-goodness and all-powerfulness combined result in a being who can ensure whatever happens is as it ought to be. That covers both the is and ought ends.

that said, as much a I'd prefer to talk of the latter concept, I think it's a lot easier to believe in a rational explanation for everything kind of God than the traditional one.

 

[charlatan]

I bet @Ren would appreciate this, but if the universe were spinoza-like AND panpsychism were true, meaning both the universe contains an explanation of all things, including why things must be as they are, AND every pore of it were conscious, that's about as God-like as it gets

 

[JennyDaniella]

A lot of good points in this thread.

Coming from someone that has been religious a few years back and currently agnostic, I don’t think any terminology is a shoe-size-fits all concept when it comes to really defining and classifying God.

I personally, don’t believe that God is this typically assumed image of a white bearded man in a white robe above the clouds, but I do believe that while we are living sentient beings with the capacity of consciousness, feelings, emotions, and awareness living on a floating rock in which empty space is carrying us afloat and our nearby star is literally the sustainer of all things living, and the high probabilities and assumptions that other beings are out there; it is highly unlikely that God is this one concrete image of a man—but rather present within in all forms of nature.

As I mentioned, if there are multiple beings out there, their definition of God might be completely different than ours. Who knows? They might have already figured out the one major answer to the one question we as human beings have been searching for since the beginnings of civilization; why are we here and what is the purpose to all this?

 

[Ren]

Here is this... Time to return to my adventures in hibernation...

You cannot know God – but you have to know Him to know that. – Fr. Thomas Hopko

Hi Milk, this might be a little bit of a technical question, but do you have a philosophical reason for preferring panentheism over pantheism, or a fideist one only?

 

[Ren]

Now, don't mistake my chippy reply as my renouncing God, because I'll not do that for or to anyone. I believe that there is a presence, a source of life, a feeling of love, if you'll humor me, that is just here, for me, in me, around me. This is in every face I encounter, especially when I make eye contact with the other person; it is in every flower, seashell, tall or short tree, on the wind, in a flame of a campfire, etc.-- insert any other natural object here. It is also in the face of a dying human, a spent leaf from a tree, a barren field in late winter...am I doing ok making my point that it is indeed mysterious?

Where there is consciousness, attention to inspiration, life, love, belief, faith, etc., there is God.

The lists are infinite ... but for me the final answer is, where ever I Am, there too is God, the Source of all that was and ever will be. I'm certian that others find comfort in their own path to what or who they show gratitude to for their life, and if they do not...well I just can't comprehend that ♡

Beautiful post, Sandie ♥ In technical terms, I think your belief is close to pantheist panpsychism.

 

[Ren]

I bet @Ren would appreciate this, but if the universe were spinoza-like AND panpsychism were true, meaning both the universe contains an explanation of all things, including why things must be as they are, AND every pore of it were conscious, that's about as God-like as it gets

Haha, I agree that Spinozism + panpsychism is as God-like as it gets, from a certain perspective, but why would I appreciate it particularly?

 

[Lady Jolanda]

I conceive of God much in the same way he conceives of us.

 

[Ren]

I conceive of God much in the same way he conceives of us.

Humanistic atheist?

 

[Lady Jolanda]

Humanistic atheist?

Pretty much

I'm drunk right now, but let me get back to you once I've sobered up. Alcohol may make for funny philosophical discussions, but not necessarily for insightful or coherent ones.

 

[Ren]

Pretty much

I'm drunk right now, but let me get back to you once I've sobered up. Alcohol may make for funny philosophical discussions, but not necessarily for insightful or coherent ones.

Lol, I hope you're enjoying the inebriation Feel free to contribute, sometimes cool insights can arise from uninhibition (is that even a word?)

 

[Ren]

But basically, I think the traditional conception is reasonable enough/I go with that if I have to talk of a God -- it basically answers to the foundations for all that one might seek foundation for... morality, nature, maybe reason itself. The omniscience suggests a being who can be perfectly rational, the all-goodness and all-powerfulness combined result in a being who can ensure whatever happens is as it ought to be. That covers both the is and ought ends.

that said, as much a I'd prefer to talk of the latter concept, I think it's a lot easier to believe in a rational explanation for everything kind of God than the traditional one.

What are your grounds for favoring the traditional conception of God over the "rational explanation for everything" conception?

It might be argued that the advantage of the latter is a slimmer ontology: not two but a single substance.

 

[charlatan]

What are your grounds for favoring the traditional conception of God over the "rational explanation for everything" conception?

It might be argued that the advantage of the latter is a slimmer ontology: not two but a single substance.

I think in both cases, God is the explanation for how things are, basically because in the traditional concept, things happen as God wills them to, and he's perfectly knowing/powerful (thus since he's rational, there can't be randomness in what happens)

The BIG difference between them is the presence of the goodness/power -- that is, not only that there's an explanation of things, which covers the 'is' side of the picture, but also the 'ought' side attains complete foundations (both in terms of providing a foundation for determining what is good + in terms of ensuring things go as they ought)

I don't necessarily favor the traditional concept in terms of it being a better metaphysical foundation for reality -- after all, a rational explanation for everything seems like all you could ask. However, what I meant is when I think of 'God,' I think the closest to it is the traditional one -- it suggests that the ultimate grounds for all is a subject of some sort, and suggests morality (not just explanation of what is there but also what there ought to be in nature) would be incorporated in the foundations of the universe.

I think though that ultimately, it seems like if God were a necessary being who is all-good and all-powerful, it has the counter-intuitive consequence that only good things are possible (I personally do not think the problem of evil has good answers)....which is why I tend to think the more barebones 'just rational explanation' thing is more likely to be true. In a way I think that fits in with what you're saying about simplicity -- I think the restriction of all-good doesn't sound a natural restriction on reality.

 

[charlatan]

Haha, I agree that Spinozism + panpsychism is as God-like as it gets, from a certain perspective, but why would I appreciate it particularly

Well, I recall you mentioned you read a little about panpsychism, and as a fellow philosopher, it seems it might tickle you (as it did me) that some of the actual theories being used to reconcile difficulties in fitting consciousness into our universe (particularly given the main problem with dualism is the physical world seems causally closed, and that would push mind into a non-causal role...yet panpsychism promises that, since consciousness is integrated directly into the physical objects' natures, it obviously plays a causal role) actually sound a hell of a lot God-like. It doesn't say anything about goodness, of course, but it does fit into the more Hindu concept of consciousness as fundamental.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Hi Milk, this might be a little bit of a technical question, but do you have a philosophical reason for preferring panentheism over pantheism, or a fideist one only?

I have personal experiences that led me to a panentheistic view, (weak panentheism as the video calls it) but I went through a pantheistic view to get there, if that makes sense. The experience of oneness with all things, the peace and love as a way of being is one thing, but it's not everything. It's like, the more I know, the more I know I don't know. I will always be a "created" being, or astrolological accident or whatever we want to call life forms, but I'll never be the creator or cause of it all.