0
   

God. Personal or impersonal ?

 
 
Elmud
 
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 12:52 am
Personally,I cannot conceive of an impersonal God or creator such as the God of Spinoza or perhaps Buddhism.That is my "personal" feeling on the matter. To disqualify any first impressions, I am not a believer in fundamentalism of any kind. Therefore, I am not trying to prove any point at all. I am just sort of curious about things.
Of course, to anyone out there who believes in the fortuitous nature of things, this topic would not apply.
Now that I have qualified the subject a little, here are my questions. To those who believe in a personal God, why would God care about you? To those who believe in an impersonal God, Why would God not care about you?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,000 • Replies: 91
No top replies

 
Victor Eremita
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 03:59 am
@Elmud,
A personal (all-loving Christian) God, would care about you because you are one of His children. He creates you in His image and wants you become an authentic human being.

An impersonal God wouldn't care about you because you're just one cog in the machine he calls "Reality".
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 07:17 am
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:

An impersonal God wouldn't care about you because you're just one cog in the machine he calls "Reality".


Setting aside the semantic difficulties of saying "God cares for" something: Why would God not care about you because you are part of reality? Isn't that precisely why God would care, because you are an aspect of his creation? It seems strange to me that, if we are going to call God the creator, God would not care about his creation.
0 Replies
 
Victor Eremita
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 12:45 pm
@Elmud,
Because he isn't a personal God. It's like a God who writes creation and then disowns it because it sucks.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 06:26 pm
@Elmud,
IS the question really about whether a god cares or not? Doesn't the question have more to do with your ability to have a personal relationship with god? To deal specifically with either of these questions we would have to define God's qualities. I prefer myself to believe that I have a personal relationship with a God that is singular and unique. Although this does not preclude more non-judeo christian sentiments i have towards God. I would assume there are aspects of creation that God may have set in motion at one time and let them take their course. The golden rule notions/karma etc... seem to be religious structures to promote free will... so this affects my relationship with God among other things, and now I'm just rambling
Cheers
Russ
0 Replies
 
Patty phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 May, 2009 10:22 am
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
Personally,I cannot conceive of an impersonal God or creator such as the God of Spinoza or perhaps Buddhism.That is my "personal" feeling on the matter. To disqualify any first impressions, I am not a believer in fundamentalism of any kind. Therefore, I am not trying to prove any point at all. I am just sort of curious about things.
Of course, to anyone out there who believes in the fortuitous nature of things, this topic would not apply.
Now that I have qualified the subject a little, here are my questions. To those who believe in a personal God, why would God care about you? To those who believe in an impersonal God, Why would God not care about you?


If you are sincerely concerned with your question, try reading Charles Harstshorne's works.
0 Replies
 
Lily
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 May, 2009 10:31 am
@Elmud,
I've always thought about the impersonal God more as a divine power than a divine creature. A power doesn't care. And a impersonal God could also be the soul of everything. Your soul doesn't care about everyone else.
0 Replies
 
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 04:49 am
@Elmud,
I wonder if it makes sense to say that God, who, if He exists, is all things, is personal or impersonal. Perhaps this is a category error, an artefact of our conceptualisation, not a limit on God whereby He must be one or the other.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 10:00 am
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
Personally,I cannot conceive of an impersonal God or creator such as the God of Spinoza or perhaps Buddhism.That is my "personal" feeling on the matter. To disqualify any first impressions, I am not a believer in fundamentalism of any kind. Therefore, I am not trying to prove any point at all. I am just sort of curious about things.
Of course, to anyone out there who believes in the fortuitous nature of things, this topic would not apply.
Now that I have qualified the subject a little, here are my questions. To those who believe in a personal God, why would God care about you? To those who believe in an impersonal God, Why would God not care about you?


I agree with you on that, God can be what he likes to be a loving father to some or an awesome being you must approach carefully and great reverence

I believe in a personal God of love, because I have felt his love , comfort and in times of great trials

When I was young we had an African lady housekeeper, we used to hear here praying and communicating with God all the time.

She called God Pappa and I think the Lord really likes that simple approach to God
0 Replies
 
luth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 01:54 pm
@Elmud,
At first I want to say "hello" everyone. This is my first post on this forum. I'm don't speak english very well, but I want to take part in discussion. I'm very interested in philosophy.

Ok, end of offtopic:D. About subject of discusion - I'm suprised that most of you think that God is personal. In my opinion he is nature. Just, simple. We often feel love of nature, it boundless goodness and force when it is 'angry'. Of course I don't believe that nature have self-convince, but I think that God and nature is one and the same ;>.

PS: I hope that my english isn't so bad? If is it i will come back later, after I improve that
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 08:48 pm
@luth,
luth wrote:
At first I want to say "hello" everyone. This is my first post on this forum. I'm don't speak english very well, but I want to take part in discussion. I'm very interested in philosophy.

Ok, end of offtopic:D. About subject of discusion - I'm suprised that most of you think that God is personal. In my opinion he is nature. Just, simple. We often feel love of nature, it boundless goodness and force when it is 'angry'. Of course I don't believe that nature have self-convince, but I think that God and nature is one and the same ;>.

PS: I hope that my english isn't so bad? If is it i will come back later, after I improve that


A warm welcome to you, don't worry about your English, it is all about the content and logic .

You might be surprised many whose home language is English cant spell English words

God reveals himself in his creation or nature, he is whatever you want him/her/it/they to be
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 09:56 pm
@Alan McDougall,
"God reveals himself in his creation or nature, he is whatever you want him/her/it/they to be."

So god is just a variable? That doesn't make any sense...

If your statement is true then I could say, god is a pile of dog crap, completely useless to me unless I want to toss it in the garden for compost. Other than that god stinks.

So are you sure you really believe that comment or it just sounds nice in your head since you can't seem to put all the pieces together?

I take a different approach. The god depicted in the bible, well if that being exists, it in my opinion is not even worthy of being called a god, let alone deserving my praise or worship. Why do I say that?

Well a being who creates something and destroys it because it doesn't like the way it turned out is a rather childish thing to do. It basically says that humanity can't rehabilitate itself at all and it is just easier to erase it and start over. But this is an absurd theory since god would be acting under the assumption that he wouldn't know the next outcome.

My point is, if it failed once, what makes you think it will succeed the second time? Unless you have absolutely no idea how it will turn out the second time. So why get so pissed off and destroy everything if it's just going to turn out the same way? It's ridiculous. It points out a fundamental flaw...

Could there be a god that created everything, I say there is a possibility, but is it the god depicted in the bible? Well they could be the same, however; not worthy of the title in my opinion.
rhinogrey
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 10:53 pm
@Krumple,
The Old Testament is a mythological text, nothing more.

Gods have always acted childish -- just look at Krishna and the like.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 12:25 am
@Elmud,
"Gods have always acted childish -- just look at Krishna and the like."

My point wasn't that god would be childish or is childish. My point is if you know ahead of time that something is going to fail, why get pissed off?

I make a deck of card house knowing damn well that it will eventually fall over. Why get so pissed off when it does?

Here is a better example.

I am a computer programmer and I write a program that only adds. I run the program and sure enough all it does is add. Then I want to make it more complex, so I give it the ability to randomly subtract. Now I run the new program and I'm happy when it is adding but as soon as it subtracts, I'm going to delete the program. Well I know I wrote it so it would randomly subtract but how dare it subtract!

Are you going to try to squeeze in the bogus argument that subtracting was not intentional and it is a "bug" in the software? If that is the case then I can make the case that god is a horrible programmer.
Sympathypains
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 03:33 am
@Elmud,
The angry God thing is quite absurd, but the idea of a God being personal may not be.

We are personal and are the highest known inteligence.

Why would a higher inteligence be less personal?
0 Replies
 
Patty phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 08:41 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
"Gods have always acted childish -- just look at Krishna and the like."

My point wasn't that god would be childish or is childish. My point is if you know ahead of time that something is going to fail, why get pissed off?

I make a deck of card house knowing damn well that it will eventually fall over. Why get so pissed off when it does?

Here is a better example.

I am a computer programmer and I write a program that only adds. I run the program and sure enough all it does is add. Then I want to make it more complex, so I give it the ability to randomly subtract. Now I run the new program and I'm happy when it is adding but as soon as it subtracts, I'm going to delete the program. Well I know I wrote it so it would randomly subtract but how dare it subtract!

Are you going to try to squeeze in the bogus argument that subtracting was not intentional and it is a "bug" in the software? If that is the case then I can make the case that god is a horrible programmer.


Actually, your interpretation of what God's possible essence could be faulty.

First. To some extent of course God is not pleased with the wrong actions that are being committed by his creatures, but it doesn't necessarily follow that if that happens, he gets angry or whatever and somehow loses his perfectness.

Second, you seem to strike on the idea that really had Charles Darwin rethink about God's existence-he cannot reconcile the fact that if God were the cause of all things, then it is impossible to for things to be undetermined. So same thing with your problem that "if God sees all things then why make something that will piss him off?"

Third, God would be acting more foolishly if he would create creatures that act only by necessity and not by their own free will. This would simply make him not only the ultimate cause of things, but also the only cause of all things. Therefore no creature truly acts, no freedom, no real process of rationalization etc.

Fourth, Consider this.

God is omnipotent, but he cannot escape the responsibility of all his actions, therefore he cannot really create individual beings that are free and thinks and decides for itself.

God is omnipotent, he can make himself not responsible for all the actions done by his creatures. His power itself can give autonomy and therefore freedom to his creatures.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 02:04 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
"God reveals himself in his creation or nature, he is whatever you want him/her/it/they to be."

So god is just a variable? That doesn't make any sense...

If your statement is true then I could say, god is a pile of dog crap, completely useless to me unless I want to toss it in the garden for compost. Other than that god stinks.

So are you sure you really believe that comment or it just sounds nice in your head since you can't seem to put all the pieces together?

I take a different approach. The god depicted in the bible, well if that being exists, it in my opinion is not even worthy of being called a god, let alone deserving my praise or worship. Why do I say that?

Well a being who creates something and destroys it because it doesn't like the way it turned out is a rather childish thing to do. It basically says that humanity can't rehabilitate itself at all and it is just easier to erase it and start over. But this is an absurd theory since god would be acting under the assumption that he wouldn't know the next outcome.

My point is, if it failed once, what makes you think it will succeed the second time? Unless you have absolutely no idea how it will turn out the second time. So why get so pissed off and destroy everything if it's just going to turn out the same way? It's ridiculous. It points out a fundamental flaw...

Could there be a god that created everything, I say there is a possibility, but is it the god depicted in the bible? Well they could be the same, however; not worthy of the title in my opinion.


I will rephrase my quote "God is the God of my understanding".

So according to your logic God could be a huge lump of dog Sh-t, if that the God of your understanding

You know one day YOU WILL DIE and face god and tell him that to this hypothetical face and tell him he stinks in your eyes

Why all this hatred for an entity that just might be the reason you are alive and exist?

God is a Spirit outside of time and space existing in an "ever changing moment

God is the lover of my soul , the reason I exist the great father, the giver of life, the inscrutable one
0 Replies
 
salima
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 10:57 am
@Elmud,
i used to ponder this question and for a long time i was convinced that there was no such thing as a personal god. god was a word used by people to name the energy behind what materializes as matter. it doesnt 'care'.

but if there is a unified energy, and it has materialized all things-even if you dont want to believe it intentionally did so...wouldnt you have to agree that it has to have the attributes of everything that has ever or could ever be manifested? i mean to say that everything that we can see has to be there in a potentiality in that energy field called god. so god is love, and even if he is impersonal he has to care.

then the argument begins with people who say 'oh, so god is everything! are you saying god is sh1t? god is an a$$hole? god is a murderer'

hehehe. i guess that is what i am saying. but dont take it personal!

i also have a theory that even though god is good and god is bad, that going by the fact that we are still around and have a long history behind us (unless it is an illusion) that proves this energy is nurturing rather than destructive. otherwise we would all be gone, right? it would have ended a long time ago.

sorry, i am not taking the question lightly. it's just that i have thought about these things for so long that sometimes it makes me laugh at myself.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 12:07 pm
@Elmud,
Quote:
i also have a theory that even though god is good and god is bad, that going by the fact that we are still around and have a long history behind us (unless it is an illusion) that proves this energy is nurturing rather than destructive. otherwise we would all be gone, right? it would have ended a long time ago.
This doesn't prove anything. Nurturing rather than destructive? Energy? If you look at the universe outside our solar system it is INCREDIBLY hostile. Radiation that would cook human flesh in seconds. Explosions on levels you can't even imagine. Objects that would crush you before you even got close to them. Even within our solar system is nothing but hostile stuff. Asteroids nearly miss the earth all the time, and some of them are large enough to create quite a bit of problems for us. These near misses are sometimes only hours off. As far as saying some being is preventing these hostile things from happening is a huge joke to me. Why? Well if these asteroids nearly miss the earth, why create them in the first place if you are just going to make them nearly miss and kill your beloved creation? That is why I don't buy that argument.

Quote:
I will rephrase my quote "God is the God of my understanding".

So according to your logic God could be a huge lump of dog Sh-t, if that the God of your understanding

You know one day YOU WILL DIE and face god and tell him that to this hypothetical face and tell him he stinks in your eyes

Why all this hatred for an entity that just might be the reason you are alive and exist?

God is a Spirit outside of time and space existing in an "ever changing moment

God is the lover of my soul , the reason I exist the great father, the giver of life, the inscrutable one
I'm glad you care enough to remind me of this however; if such a situation occurs, I would expect god to understand that he created me with this mind of mine that just couldn't settle on an ancient book of tales and bigotry. A book that promotes violence and inhumane behavior. That there are SO many religions how could you expect a person to pick the right one? The members of them all scream at you that they are the ones with the TRUE knowledge.

How could I believe in a convoluted story where this benevolent god so convinced himself that he had not given his creation a fair enough shot at his expectations so he embedded himself into the role of one of his creations to prove to himself that he could uphold his own expectations? And as a final display of such success would toss himself into the muck of society and die (because of societal rebellion) for the greater cause of rescuing humanity from the one being who made the rules in the first place?

It reeks and that is why I say god would stink to high heaven. I shouldn't even talk about it really because I should allow you to believe what you will without me criticizing it. But the aspect I see which I find threatening is when ideology insists it must force it's moralistic views onto society to obey them. This causes nothing but more misery and suffering onto the world, it never prevents or makes it better. It is for this reason that I feel I must say something.

Quote:
Actually, your interpretation of what God's possible essence could be faulty.
So same thing with your problem that "if God sees all things then why make something that will piss him off?"
Yes, this is the fundamental flaw I refer to but unlike Darwin I am not hung up on it. He was a christian and still thought a god hand his hands in the workings of nature. I however do not think any being plays any roles as a caretaker in nature. If there was such a being then odd stuff would happen that we simply could not explain but this never happens.

The funny thing about all this is, you have no more of an idea about god than I do. The only difference between us is that you believe and I don't. We have absolutely nothing else to go on than a hunch, a guess, a hypothesis, a theory. You are no closer to the truth than I although you might claim you are because you have faith or something but lets be honest here you know damn well you have nothing else to go on than that.

So I beg the question, had you never been subjected to the bible or a church goer would you ever consider god as existing? Can you honestly answer it? Before you do take into consideration this possible scenario;

Imagine you were born, blind and deaf, you also couldn't taste or feel anything as well as smell. All you had were your thoughts. Let's assume that a doctor is keeping your body alive but you have absolutely no knowledge of that doctor. What would your world consist of? You would never learn a language, you would never learn about a car, a house, a job, the idea of a mother or father wouldn't occur to you. In fact you would not even consider yourself as a thing because to do so you must have something that does not consist of you to say, "this is me, that is not me." If you can't sense anything else then you have no way to determine anything. The last little bit of this is the kicker, you wouldn't even have the concept of god because god is something taught to you, it is not inherent.
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 04:57 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud;49642 wrote:
God. Personal or impersonal ?

Both! And every other shade of possibility in between.
'Dog' can only know it'self' through us.
Whatever we individually think, feel, see, conceive, etc... about 'dog', is all that 'dog' can 'know' about itSelf.
Ultimately, the sum-total of all Perspectives of 'dog' is the totality of 'dog's' 'Self' awareness...
'Dog' is so much more than any individual (Perspective) concept.

Whether the elephant soft, wet and stanky, or like a tree depends on Perspective (where the blind men are groping). An elephant, in toto, is all Perspectives of elephant. Like you and I are, in totality, a similar 'compilation' of Perspectives; our's is but one.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » God. Personal or impersonal ?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 04:40:56