God. Personal or impersonal ?

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

What I am saying is that when you have the concept of "I" immediately you get the concept of "NOT I". Then generally what follows is a whole procession of questions, what created this I, where does this I originate, how does this I come into being. That is where god is created from. If there is no concept of "I" the concept of god will never arise.

So what do you mean then by the "I" as the cause of every concept? So is the question really revolving on the question of "how we get to know things" perse?

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Quote:

So what do you mean then by the "I" as the cause of every concept? So is the question really revolving on the question of "how we get to know things" perse?

To have the concept of "I" it distinguishes everything that is also not "I". That is how we get everything else. If you have no senses to sense the world, you will never develop any ideas for anything other than "I" and also "I" would not develop. They arise at the same moment.

I make this point because the concept of god is not something innate. It is a concept we are taught. If it is taught and not innate then just how relevant is it? If no one were around to teach you it, then the concept is very limited in scope wouldn't you say?

Spreading religions causes cultural genocide and especially if it is forced. We know that the history of Christianity had forced itself onto other cultures. This is an injustice that can not be denied nor forgiven. Yet it blinks it's eyes in innocents and pushed under the rug hoping people will ignore those past actions.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

To have the concept of "I" it distinguishes everything that is also not "I". That is how we get everything else. If you have no senses to sense the world, you will never develop any ideas for anything other than "I" and also "I" would not develop. They arise at the same moment.

I make this point because the concept of god is not something innate. It is a concept we are taught. If it is taught and not innate then just how relevant is it? If no one were around to teach you it, then the concept is very limited in scope wouldn't you say?

Spreading religions causes cultural genocide and especially if it is forced. We know that the history of Christianity had forced itself onto other cultures. This is an injustice that can not be denied nor forgiven. Yet it blinks it's eyes in innocents and pushed under the rug hoping people will ignore those past actions.

Religion is usually passed on but the existence of God is not necessarily taught. To have the concept of "I" it presupposes an internal faculty, which actually is our intellect or rationality. Our intellect is very much capable of knowing contradictions and identities.

Your are somewhat espusing an empiricistic view or earlity which i don't really think has any contradictory implications with regard the existence of God. The existence of God is not proven through innate ideas or ontological arguments, such demonstrations don't explain the autonomous existence of God but rather pooly gives an autonomous concept. the flaw of Descartes and Anselm was that they made an illegitimate jump from the realm of ideas to the realm of the observable world.

Their are metaphysical ways of constructing views how and why God exists without necessarily making God part of matter and at the same time is based on a posteriori demonstration as opposed to a priori intuitions.

It's quite confusing that you keep insisting that without senses we cannot know anything and yet you reject the notion of innate ideas. Believing in the existence of God doesn't not reject sensation and the intellect. Man is made of parts but he also psychically one. We know things through and from the sensible but that doesn't mean we cannot form or conceive ideas of our own, the may not be found in reality but still they have foundation in reality.

You seem to have an epistemological problem.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Quote:

You seem to have an epistemological problem.

Okay, you tell me, if you were born without senses yet your body were kept alive. Tell me what would you think about? I personally say you wouldn't think of anything but that is my epistemological problem. So you tell me what would you think about?

1 Reply

@Elmud,

"Okay, you tell me, if you were born without senses yet your body were kept alive. Tell me what would you think about? I personally say you wouldn't think of anything but that is my epistemological problem. So you tell me what would you think about?"...K

let me try...
i think the conglomerate intellect would think 'this is boring...what to do...who to talk to...' and the force of the thinking with nothing to think about might cause a reaction

i am not being mean or even funny. i dont even know what epistemological means. but i think now you are really on to something.

---------- Post added at 07:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 AM ----------

not only that but what you said about concept of i makes sense to me now. the single composite intellect would not have any concept of i until the manifestation happened (i dont like the word creation because it implies intention) and duality became a fact. therefore i suggest that the 'concept of i' and 'duality' resulting from manifestation were simultaneous.

it is the remembrance of the state prior to that which is inherent in every being, thing, all of manifestation, that births the concept of god in the individual (I)ntellect.

religions on the other hand were an afterthought trying to explain the tendency and were quickly used in politics and warfare with devastating results.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Okay, you tell me, if you were born without senses yet your body were kept alive. Tell me what would you think about? I personally say you wouldn't think of anything but that is my epistemological problem. So you tell me what would you think about?

To simplify your scenario, it is like having a body that possesses life but at the same time is unconscious. your example is actually possible, since some bodies have no possibility of accessing the external world or self conscious. But such an example is predicable only to particulars, since we know from a fact that the world is not composed of purely irrational beings. Your example can go as far as to argue existence and nothingness.

Going back to your example, that a life is being kept alive by an external agent presupposes an agent that either intelligently knows what it is doing or is following certain laws that function to preserve life. Your example can only be demonstrated from a third person point of view, since part of your example necessarily needs the external agent for the preservation of life.

1 Reply

@Patty phil,

Here is an essay I wrote given my idea about god the Infinite All

Hi, All,

I have gone to many places walked on the great grass prairies, and steps, mountains of wonder stood at the north of Scotland with the icy North Sea blowing on my body. I saw the earth in its blue beauty and rose up. I have walked on monochrome moons and seen with mind sight blazing clouds of light and felt huge translucent beings flow through me awareness as I hovered somewhere in the deep void.

I have heard the vibrations beautiful music of the universe, as the stars blaze in glorious song praising god across vast space. My mind overcome with the beauty wept, as I then knew that each living mind was an essential building block a brick that holds up the fabric of reality and existence.

Merged in blissful everlasting union with the sublime and all living beings become one "titanic cosmic mind" I felt and knew "GOD". "I am god" "I am infinite" "I am all" yet I remain "myself".

I have seen cities of pure composite light traveled and at the speed of infinity exiting the universe until it became but one tiny dot in the utter vastness of the in the infinite cosmic ocean on which all realms floated like foam in the endless timeless moments of existence

Size is relative new realms exist an infinity of both relatively smaller and infinitely larger, universes rapped up withing universes, ever larger ever smaller like Russians dolls

I have watched in breathless awe at the beauty and wonder of great beings of absolute purity who roam the great oceans of space on great gossamer wings stretching a million miles between their glittering with tips.

I have seen beings that only make one move in a million years and do not know we exist. Others entities existing for one tiny flashing infinitesimal moment and vanishing before we ever notice There are those that exist within other dimensions and realities living lives are just as complex protracted and full as ours.

Then blazing into the "Super Mother Universe" I observed the awesome gold light infinite of the "Source of it all" and, could not comprehend the unimaginable beauty of the "Original Mind", and "Original Thought" that created existence.

We sang together the music of the orbs that we had become, now we were indestructible energy. Strange as it would be without the eternal the eternal, "I" and the eternal "YOU" there would be nothing at all.
Back then we, together, created all that there "is"

This was not the end but only the beginning in the everlasting progressions of existence, we all merged in the eternal moment singing the great song the great original vibrations of a new creation.

Together now back we are god and we are we nothing is hidden everything is possible rejoice for we are infinity eternal beautiful as we formulate a new existence more wonderful than the first, in the ceaseless cycles of creations

I am Ceaseless Creator

But really I AM

"LIFE"

Reversing all entropy we began to create a new creation

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;64283 wrote:

Here is an essay I wrote given my idea about god the Infinite All

Hi, All,

I have gone to many places walked on the great grass prairies, and steps, mountains of wonder stood at the north of Scotland with the icy North Sea blowing on my body. I saw the earth in its blue beauty and rose up. I have walked on monochrome moons and seen with mind sight blazing clouds of light and felt huge translucent beings flow through me awareness as I hovered somewhere in the deep void.

I have heard the vibrations beautiful music of the universe, as the stars blaze in glorious song praising god across vast space. My mind overcome with the beauty wept, as I then knew that each living mind was an essential building block a brick that holds up the fabric of reality and existence.

Merged in blissful everlasting union with the sublime and all living beings become one "titanic cosmic mind" I felt and knew "GOD". "I am god" "I am infinite" "I am all" yet I remain "myself".

I have seen cities of pure composite light traveled and at the speed of infinity exiting the universe until it became but one tiny dot in the utter vastness of the in the infinite cosmic ocean on which all realms floated like foam in the endless timeless moments of existence

Size is relative new realms exist an infinity of both relatively smaller and infinitely larger, universes rapped up withing universes, ever larger ever smaller like Russians dolls

I have watched in breathless awe at the beauty and wonder of great beings of absolute purity who roam the great oceans of space on great gossamer wings stretching a million miles between their glittering with tips.

I have seen beings that only make one move in a million years and do not know we exist. Others entities existing for one tiny flashing infinitesimal moment and vanishing before we ever notice There are those that exist within other dimensions and realities living lives are just as complex protracted and full as ours.

Then blazing into the "Super Mother Universe" I observed the awesome gold light infinite of the "Source of it all" and, could not comprehend the unimaginable beauty of the "Original Mind", and "Original Thought" that created existence.

We sang together the music of the orbs that we had become, now we were indestructible energy. Strange as it would be without the eternal the eternal, "I" and the eternal "YOU" there would be nothing at all.
Back then we, together, created all that there "is"

This was not the end but only the beginning in the everlasting progressions of existence, we all merged in the eternal moment singing the great song the great original vibrations of a new creation.

Together now back we are god and we are we nothing is hidden everything is possible rejoice for we are infinity eternal beautiful as we formulate a new existence more wonderful than the first, in the ceaseless cycles of creations

I am Ceaseless Creator

But really I AM

"LIFE"

Reversing all entropy we began to create a new creation

How come you concluded with "life" when majority of the things you said are not even alive? If your "I" is the ceaseless creator and at the same time it is all, then probably no distinction between the creator and the created is possible.

1 Reply

@Patty phil,

Patty;147089 wrote:

How come you concluded with "life" when majority of the things you said are not even alive? If your "I" is the ceaseless creator and at the same time it is all, then probably no distinction between the creator and the created is possible.

Maybe God wanted to create a house for himself, thus the universe came into being

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Who2

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

3 Replies

@Eljah,

Eljah;148904 wrote:

Who2

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

Nice post Elijah, I concur with your incisive comments

0 Replies

@Eljah,

Eljah;148904 wrote:

Who2

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

(3)

Quote:

The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

bizzare reasoning really

0 Replies

@Eljah,

Eljah;148904 wrote:

Who2

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

How can you make this claim?

Eljah;148904 wrote:

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

This is absurd, because the universe could have always existed. If this is true it cancels out your first and second argument thus leading to your third argument having no argument at all.

Eljah;148904 wrote:

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

Tripe.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;149190 wrote:

How can you make this claim?

very easy. All our empirical experiences show us, from nothing, nothing derives.
Or have you ever seen a ferrari pop up into existence from nothing, for example ?

Quote:

This is absurd, because the universe could have always existed.

It could theoretically, but all scientific evidence shows us, the universe must have had a beginning. If not, by the second law of thermodynamics, our universe would already be in a state of heath death.

Your answers and reasoning are too light, without foundation, to be taken seriously.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

It seems to me that as all human's are personal/individual, that god, now matter how he/it/nothing is conceived, a personal element will be involved. The Christian myth of Incarnation is a good one. God exists as a man, or just as accurate, a man exists as God.

I see each human life as the fusion of the personal and the impersonal. And of course the concept of personal depends on its negation, and the reverse.

I was a bitter atheist once, but came around to embracing the God-concept as poetic, useful, etc. I would say that "god is impersonal" in many ways, but we are dealing with such vague emotional words that I am almost bound to be misunderstood...as we all are on such a theme.

0 Replies

@Eljah,

Eljah;149201 wrote:

very easy. All our empirical experiences show us, from nothing, nothing derives.
Or have you ever seen a ferrari pop up into existence from nothing, for example ?

No but we know that energy does phase in and out of existence. And matter is just energy in a different state. I like how you take a complex form to try and use as evidence for something emerging from out of nothing. But anyways I should probably remind you that, even though there are some cosmologists who say the universe came from nothing, there are just as many who make the claim that the universe did not come from a nothing but probably has always existed as a something.

Eljah;149201 wrote:

It could theoretically, but all scientific evidence shows us, the universe must have had a beginning.

I am not in agreance with this theory. It might be widely held notion but I can easily see a reoccurring trend of expand and contract.

Eljah;149201 wrote:

If not, by the second law of thermodynamics, our universe would already be in a state of heath death.

Thanks for the joke here, even though you didn't intend on making a joke. I laughed for about fifteen minutes after reading this. The funny part is that you use the second law of thermodynamics and completely ignore the first law? You can't create nor destroy energy.

Eljah;149201 wrote:

Your answers and reasoning are too light, without foundation, to be taken seriously.

Oh so you are a mind reader now?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;149428 wrote:

Thanks for the joke here, even though you didn't intend on making a joke. I laughed for about fifteen minutes after reading this. The funny part is that you use the second law of thermodynamics and completely ignore the first law? You can't create nor destroy energy.

there is nothing so funny about what i said. My point is rocksolid, and based on common scientific knowledge.

You have to deal with the Big Bang theory, since it is one of the most solid theories, and around over 80 years. According to it, everything was created through the Big Bang, energy as well.

WikiAnswers - If the Big Bang came from a singularity where did the singularity come from

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure.
According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Elmud;49642 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 recently realized that I associate personality with idiosyncrasies. Can a pantheistic God like Spinoza's be idiosyncratic? Consider the number Pi. Isn't there something idiosyncratic about Pi? Or e? Or the Plank constant? Or the six numbers that shape the universe (see link)? Such things give even a pantheistic God "personality".

Six Numbers in Search of a Theory - September 27, 2006 - The New York Sun

2 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;149490 wrote:

I recently realized that I associate personality with idiosyncrasies. Can a pantheistic God like Spinoza's be idiosyncratic? Consider the number Pi. Isn't there something idiosyncratic about Pi? Or e? Or the Plank constant? Or the six numbers that shape the universe (see link)? Such things give even a pantheistic God "personality".

Six Numbers in Search of a Theory - September 27, 2006 - The New York Sun

I hope you dont mind if I lay out these six numbers below, thanks for the link to them!!

Ω = 1, the amount of matter in the universe, such that if Ω were greater than one, it would have collapsed long ago, and if Ω were less than one, no galaxies would have formed.

e = .007, how firmly atomic nuclei bind together, such that if epsilon were .006 or .008, matter could not exist as it does.

D = 3, the number of dimensions in which we live, such that if D were 2 or 4, life could not exist.

N = 1036 , the ratio of the strength of gravity to that of electromagnetism, such that if it had just a few less zeros, the universe would be too young and too small for life to evolve.

Q,= 1/100,000, the fabric of the universe, such that if Q were smaller, the universe would be featureless, and if Q were larger, the universe would be dominated by giant black holes.

λ = 0.7, the cosmological constant, or "antigravity" force that is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, such that if λ were larger, it would have prevented stars and galaxies from forming.

Change these relationships, and stars, planets, and life could not exist. Thus, this is not just the best of all possible worlds, it is the only possible world.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

You cannot think a thought for me any more than you can wear a hat for me. We must avoid everything that smacks of high priests.

1 Reply

God. Personal or impersonal ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know