God. Personal or impersonal ?

@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."

Krumple, the fact that everything is so hostile yet we are protected from it in various myriad ways can also be taken as proof we are in a nurturing place. but your argument is based on there having been an intention to create everything, which i do not believe. i see no evidence backing the concept that there is a blueprint behind creation.

i believe things happened the way they did because they couldnt have happened any other way, or that if they had we wouldnt be here discussing it now so those possibilities are irrelevant anyway.

but i have an inner conviction that there is a nurturing element in the intelligence or energy field (which you and most people refer to as god). i am not sure there is any way i can back up my sense of conviction which is on a metaphysical level with a set of reasons on a verbal level, but maybe i will stumble across it here.

but i also say that though the idea comes to my mind that there must be a personal god, it is not part of my experience. i personally rejected that long ago. but i am beginning to rethink. if you believe in 'higher self' or the soul that certainly is a personal entity. and believing as i do that that they are simply small points of reference of the All, then the All would be personal. (you can see i am not fond of the word god, it has too many associations)

i used to say 'if i was god i would have found a better way to provide for my children than to have them kill and eat other beings' but i now see that only as a reason not to believe there was any intention behind it, not to believe there is no intelligence there.

i am beginning to consider the theory that god is not personal, he is intelligent and impotent basically. he was thrown into this situation and here we are as a reflection of him. we can only get to know him (i am still talking in terms of a unified energy field or total intelligence) by knowing ourselves and each other. and the only power god has is through us, which is seen when humanity puts efforts together to reach a common goal. our disharmony as a species is a limitation of power.

1 Reply

@salima,

Quote:

i am beginning to consider the theory that god is not personal, he is intelligent and impotent basically. he was thrown into this situation and here we are as a reflection of him. we can only get to know him (i am still talking in terms of a unified energy field or total intelligence) by knowing ourselves and each other. and the only power god has is through us, which is seen when humanity puts efforts together to reach a common goal. our disharmony as a species is a limitation of power.

Couldn't you have the same impression without even considering it to be outside the scope of human interaction? What I am referring to is, can't humanity improve without the concept of god or an external invisible intelligence? Or do you adopt the notion that we would be rabid beasts of uncompassion without said being? I am in favor of a stand alone humanity, and since this is how I feel about it, why add anything to it? I have more optimism for humanity than most theists, but I guess that doesn't really say much for us monsters.

1 Reply

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

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".

I don't adhere to any conception of God, but wouldn't an impersonal God not care about anything because it isn't conscious? The God of Spinoza or the pantheist God is not a person at all, but a holistic way of describing nature and the universe as a spirit or supernatural entity in its own right. What exactly do you mean by personal and impersonal?

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Kumple

You are very brave from your comfortable platform of mortal life, but if you don't change your opinion on the one who gave you the precious gift of life, you will enter the doorways of death, kicking and screaming to exist just one micro second more

Go ahead call god a colossal bag of SH-T but as for me, safety first he just might take notice and hold you accountable for that statement

You seem to direct your mind and zoom in on all that is negative about god, but go into the country side, there you will have to look very carefully to find anything ugly

Beauty is all around you, the heavens declare the glory of god but all you have to give him his angry vitriolic outburst of hate

There are no atheists in the trenches still true you know!!

Look into the eyes of your beloved one, don't you see their beautiful souls beaming back at you with love?

Spit into the eye of god if you want to but, as for me I will choose to love him and accept the things I do not understand about his creation

To equate all the baggage of scripture and contradictions to god is simply silly, it is we humans that have messed in our own home, namely planet earth.

One must not defecate in our bedrooms but we humans are doing it right now, killing spaceship earth with our sh-t not gods

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Couldn't you have the same impression without even considering it to be outside the scope of human interaction? What I am referring to is, can't humanity improve without the concept of god or an external invisible intelligence? Or do you adopt the notion that we would be rabid beasts of uncompassion without said being? I am in favor of a stand alone humanity, and since this is how I feel about it, why add anything to it? I have more optimism for humanity than most theists, but I guess that doesn't really say much for us monsters.

krumple, i dont consider there to be human interaction with the energy force-in my cosmic view, we cannot be separated from this force which is the basis of our being.
i do certainly believe that humanity can improve and have compassion without considering there is an independent being judging us and meting out punishment and i do believe it is possible to think that when we die we will be gone and yet not want to trample over everyone else in order to grab everything we can. i also believe there is an afterlife and that this life and that both have value, though this life will not repeat itself in any way that we would be cognizant of as an individual.

actually i dont see that we disagree about anything.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

Alan McDougall wrote:

Kumple

You are very brave from your comfortable platform of mortal life, but if you don't change your opinion on the one who gave you the precious gift of life, you will enter the doorways of death, kicking and screaming to exist just one micro second more

Go ahead call god a colossal bag of SH-T but as for me, safety first he just might take notice and hold you accountable for that statement

You seem to direct your mind and zoom in on all that is negative about god, but go into the country side, there you will have to look very carefully to find anything ugly

Beauty is all around you, the heavens declare the glory of god but all you have to give him his angry vitriolic outburst of hate

There are no atheists in the trenches still true you know!!

Look into the eyes of your beloved one, don't you see their beautiful souls beaming back at you with love?

Spit into the eye of god if you want to but, as for me I will choose to love him and accept the things I do not understand about his creation

To equate all the baggage of scripture and contradictions to god is simply silly, it is we humans that have messed in our own home, namely planet earth.

One must not defecate in our bedrooms but we humans are doing it right now, killing spaceship earth with our sh-t not gods

hello alan.
i will reply to your post though it was directed to krumple because since he and i agree on many points i think it also applies to me.
i am not spitting into the eye of anyone, since i dont yet conceive of their being any 'other', and if i am calling god a bag of sh1t i am also calling myself one.
i see the beauty in the eyes of the beloved all around me, and it could be stated that i can also see the beauty in a bag of sh1t.
anyone i love, whether it is my son or a lover or a poet or a philosopher i am loving in the name of god as far as you are concerned. it is all a question of terminology.
i also accept certain things about existence or reality that i do not understand, and that makes it hard for me to debate about them.
of course i am only speaking about my own point of view here. but i can look back on my life and see every moment of suffering and illness as a gift, a useful tool, all kinds of things that are not negative. the reason i can do this is not because i believe in a personal god, but because i know i have a choice, and the way we perceive things has a lot to do with our ability to change them.
i live in india-i see filth, exploitation, poverty and suffering every day, and yet there is a beautiful side to life here that cannot be found in america.

beauty can be found everywhere-everything has its own beauty, though not everyone will perceive it.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Quote:

You are very brave from your comfortable platform of mortal life, but if you don't change your opinion on the one who gave you the precious gift of life, you will enter the doorways of death, kicking and screaming to exist just one micro second more

Well see there are a lot of problems with your theory there. Problems that I really can't accept. They are paradoxes in a way but saying that doesn't help you understand so I'll try to explain.

With your statement it implies that this is a possibility:

Let's say there is a person who you love so much in life but upon death discover that they went to hell while you went to heaven. For me I could never enjoy heaven knowing the person who I loved so much was suffering. In fact heaven would become a hell of sorts because I would long for that person to be with me.

How can you account for this problem? I have heard all sorts of nonsense responses. Like god will create a person like them for you in heaven. Which to me is basically saying god will lie and fool you into believing they are the person you think they are but really they are in hell.

Then there are the people who like to shrug and say well that's why its important to get everyone on gods side so you aren't separated. Which is also ridiculous because it completely ignores the problem. Saying that just sides steps the issue.

See to me everyone is doing assuming. People assume that the only people who go to hell are the people who they personally don't care for but the people who they love ALWAYS end up in heaven without question. It is a contradiction and seems to me to be nothing other than a way to ease the mind. So religion is not a truth but a way to cope with death.

When you start putting it in that light you start to see that the whole thing is about dying. You are afraid to cease to exist so you make up stuff or believe there is more existence after this life. But then you lop on these other sayings like sin is death. So if you die and refuse god he will kill you a second time. That is so silly but points out a fundamental thing. That the whole thing is about not ending up ceasing to exist.

But let me humor you for a few minutes. I have done some thinking about existence in terms of for ever and well quite honestly there is not enough things I could do for eternity that would keep me from becoming absolutely miserable. I can't imagine that you would watch movies in heaven or play the guitar in a punk rock band. I can't imagine that anything you actually do in this life would be relevant in heaven. It seems silly. Therefore in time I would be begging for an end of existence because the boredom would be more than I could bear.

With that in mind if refusing to believe in god gets me a ticket to second death or extinction from existence, then I'll gladly buy that ticket. Cause Id rather live for now and enjoy whats here in the now then happily go into oblivion. Existing for ever would be the worst punishment you could ever place onto a being, in my opinion.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Well see there are a lot of problems with your theory there. Problems that I really can't accept. They are paradoxes in a way but saying that doesn't help you understand so I'll try to explain.

With your statement it implies that this is a possibility:

Let's say there is a person who you love so much in life but upon death discover the they went to hell while you went to heaven. For me I could never enjoy heaven knowing the person who I loved so much was suffering. In fact heaven would become a hell of sorts because I would long for that person to be with me.

How can you account for this problem? I have heard all sorts of nonsense responses. Like god will create a person like them for you in heaven. Which to me is basically saying god will lie and fool you into believing they are the person you think they are but really they are in hell.

Then there are the people who like to shrug and say well that's why its important to get everyone on gods side so you aren't separated. Which is also ridiculous because it completely ignores the problem. Saying that just sides steps the issue.

See to me everyone is doing assuming. People assume that the only people who go to hell are the people who they personally don't care for but the people who they love ALWAYS end up in heaven without question. It is a contradiction and seems to me to be nothing other than a way to ease the mind. So religion is not a truth but a way to cope with death.

When you start putting it in that light you start to see that the whole thing is about dying. You are afraid to cease to exist so you make up stuff or believe there is more existence after this life. But then you lop on these other sayings like sin is death. So if you die and refuse god he will kill you a second time. That is so silly but points out a fundamental thing. That the whole thing is about not ending up ceasing to exist.

But let me humor you for a few minutes. I have done some thinking about existence in terms of for ever and well quite honestly there is not enough things I could do for eternity that would keep me from becoming absolutely miserable. I can't imagine that you would watch movies in heaven or play the guitar in a punk rock band. I can't imagine that anything you actually do in this life would be relevant in heaven. It seems silly. Therefore in time I would be begging for an end of existence because the boredom would be more than I could bear.

With that in mind if refusing to believe in god gets me a ticket to second death or extinction from existence, then I'll gladly buy that ticket. Cause Id rather live for now and enjoy whats here in the now then happily go into oblivion. Existing for ever would be the worst punishment you could ever place onto a being, in my opinion.

I couldn't have said it better. This post was a good read. You know, I've thought about the whole living for eternity bit and I'm not quite sure. Maybe living in eternity in this world wouldn't be so bad, but then again maybe it would. Living for eternity in heaven just looks boring. Nothing but clouds around and people playing harps.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

Ah so ur assuming that if there is a heaven, it is just like earth without all the problems.

Also the cartoon, clouds and harps image of heaven is the farthest you can stretch ur imagination?

What if it was something beyond your imagination?

What if it was a realm without time?

In the post you quoted, it speaks of hell, but there is little spoken of hell in most of the religious texts.

Jesus does speak of it for people who don't care for the least in this world.

So if you cared for the least in this world and loved someone who didn't, you would probably either both not really love all people, or realize that the other was not one who was a compassionate person in hindsight, so I don't see how that situation would ever happen where a kindred spirit would be separated, if both were true or false to what is right at their cores.

*if there was a God and a heaven or hell, btw*

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Quote:

What if it was a realm without time?

If there is no time, there can be no movement. Time is just a distance between two points or a reference point of memory. You can't do anything if there is no time for doing. Time distinguishes one moment of "not doing" with one of "doing" therefore a realm without time does not happen or have a happening.

For a heaven to exist as just a singular moment without time would not be a heaven in my opinion. It would be a cage of the pause button. One moment implies that you wouldn't ever have a change of moments because to change it would imply a time signature. I don't buy it, sorry...

It is so subjective of a concept to, I don't even think all theists have the same opinion about heaven or hell. Therefore you can imply that heaven and hell are just something we imagine to exist. In other words people don't fight over what bread is because we have an understanding of what bread is. Some will call it nutritious and others will not but they will never argue it isn't bread. The same can't be said about heaven or hell. Because I can turn heaven into hell with just a few words...

1 Reply

@Sympathypains,

Sympathypains wrote:

Ah so ur assuming that if there is a heaven, it is just like earth without all the problems.

Also the cartoon, clouds and harps image of heaven is the farthest you can stretch ur imagination?

What if it was something beyond your imagination?

What if it was a realm without time?

In the post you quoted, it speaks of hell, but there is little spoken of hell in most of the religious texts.

Jesus does speak of it for people who don't care for the least in this world.

So if you cared for the least in this world and loved someone who didn't, you would probably either both not really love all people, or realize that the other was not one who was a compassionate person in hindsight, so I don't see how that situation would ever happen where a kindred spirit would be separated, if both were true or false to what is right at their cores.

*if there was a God and a heaven or hell, btw*

I'm assuming that this is a response to my post. My mentioning the image of heaven with harps and clouds was a joke. I was being sarcastic about the idea of heaven.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

IMO, in all due respect our attempt to define God and place labels such a personal and impersonal are nothing more that exercises in mental masturbation as we effort to establish a relationship with that God. That automatically creates a "separation" from us with Him or it or whatever God is. When in truth, IMO, we are a part of that God; a human extension of it. When I think of a God that is proscribed by some religions to be some supernatural entity who created man for his own amusement, it makes me literally ill. What kind of an omnipotent, all knowing, all loving entity would do such a thing? Of course we have an answer for that in that we gave Him "human frailties" such as wrath, jealously and vengeance. What a crock. That doesn't fit with omnipotence in any way whatsoever. Or any kind of "omni" for that matter in that those frailties come from weakness and ignorance. If that is what you perceive God to be, then no wonder you are so damn confused.

I have gone beyond faith to the point of knowing I am a divine creation and a part of that God. I am a little piece of him. As are you. I know that for a fact. It is not a belief for me. Now explaining that and getting through the misconceptions out there makes me want to literally pull what little hair I have left out. Ha. Considering this reality, I know it is hard for many to fathom exactly what this 'oneness' is. Once you have witnessed it and experienced it, it will, as it did with me, literally blow you away. Now there are a lot of reasons for that; too many to cover in this post.
Rest assured it is not God who is confusing, we are. Let's face it for whatever reason we all dwell at the same address and are essentially a family. The problem is we don't communicate very well with each other. We are so used to surviving the chaos, we have no idea of the joy that life has to offer. Because we don't honestly communicate we become afraid of each other and build barriers that protect us. Not good in any family situation.

What ever you deem that is personal about you, should in no way conflict with that of which I feel is personal about me. That's how we learn. Now if your personal concepts cause me harm in any respect, then we must effort to remedy that. Only honesty communication will accomplish that void of selfish motivations on either side. Divinely, we can do this. But the ego has to go.

All we have to do is observe nature. It has no choice in the matter. It just is and flourishes in it's harmony. We are a part of that nature. We are, or should be compatible with it. It's all about harmony, compatibility and communication. That is nature. That is God. So it is safe to understand God is Harmony. Chaos doesn't fit in anywhere.

Once we finally understand this, then we will witness God in motion as we divinely begin to communicate and we will solve all the problems that plague us. All, all, all, all of them. And that we can definitely blame on God. Ha. In my most humble opinion. :a-ok:
William

2 Replies

@Elmud,

Will,

I don't understand why you feel the need to add. You take us and present humanity then add god to it. Why can't humanity stand of itself? Why the need to add god? Can't humanity exist without god? If it can't then we really are not humans to begin with. We would be a subset of god. But as you pointed out you believe we are a subset of god. Well then we can conclude the murderer and baby rapists are also apart of god. If you reject that and say they aren't then your initial definition that we are subset of god is also false. They both can't be true or only true when you want them to be and not when they don't favor your definition. That's cheating...

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Will,

I don't understand why you feel the need to add. You take us and present humanity then add god to it. Why can't humanity stand of itself? Why the need to add god? Can't humanity exist without god? If it can't then we really are not humans to begin with. We would be a subset of god. But as you pointed out you believe we are a subset of god. Well then we can conclude the murderer and baby rapists are also apart of god. If you reject that and say they aren't then your initial definition that we are subset of god is also false. They both can't be true or only true when you want them to be and not when they don't favor your definition. That's cheating...

Outstanding question. Thanks. Please bear with me in not being able to cover all the bases. I type as I think. We are a part of that God, the problem is we are not in tune with it. It's much like a baby as it goes through an indoctrination and orientation with it's new surroundings. Though we are a part, we are disconnected in that we cannot conceive of God as it relates to our physical existence which is, in the wide scope of the universe much like that of a baby. Yes, my friend there are attrocities and those of of man's actions resulting from that disconnect. That baby rapist was not born a baby rapist, he was made one by this reality and what he personally experience. Yes, it is horrible and we handle it accordingly. What we need to do is stop creating baby rapists. Being that we have no idea of the perfection of our being and there was not book of directions, it was necessary in the broad scope of things for us to experience what could be defined as hell, before we would wise up and began to build that heaven we hear so much about. I am of the opinion there is no future, there is no past, there is only the present. Granted we have recorded as much as we could from the past, but it is too flawed and finding the truth is not easy task, to say the least. As we exist in the now, so does the universe and that God that oversees it as far as we are concerned. Do I understand all it workings, of course not. I just know we are a part of it and I try my best to recognize that which is harmonic with it as it relates to our existence and that future we will create. Either we will recognize our divinity or continue the path we are heading and just see how much hell we can endure.
I hope that clears it up a little, Smile

later,
William

.

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

I have gone beyond faith to the point of knowing I am a divine creation and a part of that God. I am a little piece of him. As are you. I know that for a fact. It is not a belief for me.

If it is a proposition that you accept as true then it is a belief. A person can choose to disbelieve in a fact, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

You've gone beyond faith, huh? I think that place is called mysticism. I think your conceiving of God as nature stems from an emotional need for transcendence. I am a part of the universe and the universe is a part of me, but I would never define the universe as a God. Calling nature God is unparsimonious, as we can explain and define nature in a more simple, practical, and natural way. Nature does not constitute as supernatural agency.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

We can explain and define the 'how' of nature, but not the 'why.' Maybe God is the 'why.'

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

If it is a proposition that you accept as true then it is a belief. A person can choose to disbelieve in a fact, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

You've gone beyond faith, huh? I think that place is called mysticism. I think your conceiving of God as nature stems from an emotional need for transcendence. I am a part of the universe and the universe is a part of me, but I would never define the universe as a God. Calling nature God is unparsimonious, as we can explain and define nature in a more simple, practical, and natural way. Nature does not constitute as supernatural agency.

Did I not mention something about pulling my hair out? Ha. It is definitely mystical, incomprehensible and phenomenal. I just know it exists. You are more than welcome to draw your conclusions of my emotional needs, or whatever. That's normal. I don't blame you. For you or me to understand it on a rational level is not possible. I can't call God, the universe; just the inexplicable intelligence behind it, that drives it, sees to it or oversees it. We, nature as we define it, and the universe are all of ONE nature. We are all a part of it and harmony is the key.

As far as you comments on nature, it has every thing to do with parsimony. Less is definitely better as long as it not a lack. More is definitely part of the problem. If you would explain how you arrived at that conclusion, I would surely appreciate it. Yes we can and have discovered a lot about nature, but try making a leaf from scratch? Without that leaf, we couldn't survive on this planet. That in itself is pretty "supernatural" to me.

All I know is it has taken me over 30 years to "clear my head" from the effects of the first 30 years. It is not easy to get through the entrench thought that responsible for the reality we have created. Perhaps, I, at a very young age, unknowingly, ascertain "something is really wrong here". I don't know how to explain it in such a way that will be easy to comprehend, as you above statement indicates. You came to a conclusion based on what you have been taught and believe. An emotional need for transcendence. What is that? If you follow my posts at all, none of what I espouse is about what "I" want or need. What is the use of transcendence unless all can transcend. Pretty useless if you ask me.:perplexed:

Thanks for your comments.

William

1 Reply

@Elmud,

It seems quite obvious to me, that Mother Nature is being taken on the witness stand for the moment. Mother Nature, of course, (and it is most paradoxical) is omnisex so definitely, without any mistake whatsoever, both 'he' (and for heaven's sake please, let's all refrain from using the capital except at the beginning of the sentence, because then you mean YHWH [the Jewish religious belief-sysytem's model alone, and then you'd have to delimit your definitions; as that model is quite fixed]) and 'she' and any combination of the two.

That Mother Nature exists is beyond reasonable question. That Mother Nature is a continuum of personal and impersonal is considerably beyond reasonable question. That all living and non-living, animate and inanimate entities are both extensions of, and agents of, Mother Nature should lead to no great discontentment nor disagreement.

So yes, in the English language, we can use the word 'god' as an epithet for Mother Nature, if we so well please, but we cannot use the word "God' without acquiescing to the requirement of its having a referent quite specifically spelled out, identified, anthropomorphized, and located individual being--and that is NOT Mother Nature. However, it is most true, and should be most evident to all, that we do not need anything of the likes of blind faith to realize that Mother Nature is both, personal (as I am with my family, friends, and students) and impersonal (as the earth worm is towards the microbe, or the particle of iron is to an atom of hydrogen). What's all the fuss? (this last comment is NOT aimmed at this thread, nor posts contained within)

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

Did I not mention something about pulling my hair out? Ha. It is definitely mystical, incomprehensible and phenomenal. I just know it exists. You are more than welcome to draw your conclusions of my emotional needs, or whatever. That's normal. I don't blame you. For you or me to understand it on a rational level is not possible. I can't call God, the universe; just the inexplicable intelligence behind it, that drives it, sees to it or oversees it. We, nature as we define it, and the universe are all of ONE nature. We are all a part of it and harmony is the key.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! You do not know that God exists. Knowledge is justified true belief, and its justification stems from itss ability to be empirical verified or logically verified, though logic is more limited when it comes to obtaining knowledge. Intuition is not proper justification for knowledge. People have intuitions or perspectives on a number of things, and they are usually dead wrong when they rely on intuition alone. Mysticism mistakes feeling for knowing. You believe in some conception of God, obscure as it may be, because you feel like there should be a God, not because you've observed the existence of a supernatural being.

William wrote:

As far as you comments on nature, it has every thing to do with parsimony. Less is definitely better as long as it not a lack. More is definitely part of the problem. If you would explain how you arrived at that conclusion, I would surely appreciate it. Yes we can and have discovered a lot about nature, but try making a leaf from scratch? Without that leaf, we couldn't survive on this planet. That in itself is pretty "supernatural" to me.

Parsimony means the more simplistic, practical, verifiable explanation for a phenomenon. Scientists are able to do things with organic matter and inorganic matter than nature can never do, so making a leaf may not be such a big deal. All life is made of carbohydrates, lipids, and fatty acids, and these substances can be used to bioengineer an organism. I don't want to seem belittling or condescending, but it is excessively silly to consider the existence of a leaf to be supernatural. Please define supernatural?

William wrote:

You came to a conclusion based on what you have been taught and believe. An emotional need for transcendence. What is that? If you follow my posts at all, none of what I espouse is about what "I" want or need. What is the use of transcendence unless all can transcend. Pretty useless if you ask me.:perplexed:

I did not come to my conclusions based on popular beliefs or opinions, nor was I raised with these conclusions, nor were any of my peers adherents to these conclusions. I came to these conclusions through introspection and study. I know enough about human psychology to know about the emotional need for transcendence. I also know enough about human psychology to know that we have the tendency to see intentional patterns in unintentional patterns. It's called fundamental attribution error in psychology. God is a way for us to apply purpose to a purposeless universe that doesn't have us in mind.

1 Reply

@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?

Many religion have a good that is much too personal and i dislike that. An impersonal god is a much better idea to me. I don't really believe in any god of any sorts at the moment. If i were to support and impersonal god i'd like to think of that thought more of as a guardian, now i say this because an impersonal god seems more like and overwatching, un-interfering angel. One that does not care about the likeness of any particular being or lifeform but is mainly there to guide life as a whole in our path. Personal gods just don't make sense to me. What i like about an impersonal go is the idea that humanity as a whole would be put together as one and a god would not be involved with unimportant matter suchs as a single life or a small group of lives.

0 Replies

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey wrote:

We can explain and define the 'how' of nature, but not the 'why.' Maybe God is the 'why.'

The why is a void. It is an unanswered question and it is lazy to fill any gaps in knowledge with a three letter word and a conception that is evidently human. It insults and frightens the human mind when it realizes that it doesn't know it all.

1 Reply

God. Personal or impersonal ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know