What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Defining it as "one god" is still not sufficient to know what we're talking about.

By not acknowledging all I've said on the subject in the thread you're forcing the discussion to go in circles. I have said that the only reasonable assumption we can make is that he/she/it is the God who created the universe. Do you have an alternative interesting enough to talk about?

Quote:

You are implying things about this "god" of yours when you refer to it as a "he"

Yes, those are inferences. It is what we have to start with since we are not born with the knowledge of him. 'He' infers a conscious, rational being similar but obviously more powerful than us.
'Him' is just for brevity, not ascribing gender btw.

Quote:

and when you say "god does not recognize". The act of recognizing anything is extremely limiting to the scope of what you could be considering for a god, and to be honest it sounds like you are assuming that god is the Judeo- Christian god. So is that the god we're talking about here?

Well of course it 'limits' the scope. A being capable of creating the universe eliminates many boring possibilities. Those others would not be interesting enough to have this discussion about.

If there is only one God then of course it has to be the same one that they believe exists. That does not mean I agree with them about what his nature is other than that he is the one who created 'all this'.

1 Reply

I probably shouldn't get into personalities, but I enjoy reading both Glennn and Leadfoot. I do wish they didn't post on the same threads so often.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Do you believe that you are separate from your surroundings? Are you separate from the trees and ocean?

I set fire to part of a tree once. It didn't hurt a bit. . .

1 Reply

@neologist,

Yeah, and my guess is that you've probably killed a lot of brain cells, and that didn't hurt a bit either . . .

1 Reply

@Glennn,

That was a different sort of fire.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It sounds now like you are implying God has to be interesting. Why have you dismissed all the other possibilities?

From my perspective I find the "Spinoza's God" ideas far more interesting than any of the Personal Gods or Causal God concepts.

If you think this discussion should be about the God that you find interesting then you should at least let us know what it is.

I cannot find a place in this thread where you have stated that clearly and comprehensively.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

I probably shouldn't get into personalities, but I enjoy reading both Glennn and Leadfoot. I do wish they didn't post on the same threads so often.

: )

Me too! Feels like being on a low speed merry-go-round..

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

The god is big; the god was alone; the god got lonely; the god created man, animals, rocks, and lights in the sky; the god got mad at what it had made, and so drowned it all.

I would suggest to you that the slowness is of your own making.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

It sounds now like you are implying God has to be interesting. Why have you dismissed all the other possibilities?

Aside from the experience of meeting him, that would probably be due to my personal curse of being unable to motivate myself with anything that does not greatly interest me.

Quote:

From my perspective I find the "Spinoza's God" ideas far more interesting than any of the Personal Gods or Causal God concepts.

While I feel a kinship with Spinoza for his rejection of dogma, his experience of 'excommunication' and his recognition of God as non-interfering with our wills, he failed to recognize the truth he himself proved in his own life - that he was free to exercise his own will. Instead he chose to believe the nonsense that he had no such freedom.

Our paths diverged when he embraced causality in the physical world but was too timid to explore causality in the spiritual.

What is it about Spinoza's philosophy that attracts you?

Quote:

If you think this discussion should be about the God that you find interesting then you should at least let us know what it is.

Since I found most conventional ideas about God to be false, I had no choice but to start at the beginning so that's what I've attempted to do, alas, to no avail. I do sometimes feel like Sisyphus

Quote:

I cannot find a place in this thread where you have stated that clearly and comprehensively.

If not in this thread I've said it as clearly as I can in many others.

But for the record, God, in his desire for interesting company, created 'all this' as the environment in which that company could develop. Included in that environment is the free will that Spinoza rejected. In order not to compromise that free will, God had to make his presence known only when earnestly sought.

That is not 'comprehensive' but it is the premise for everything that follows.

Glad you were interested enough to ask.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

and so drowned it all.

Not all Glennn, you would not be here to have this chance otherwise.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Oh that's right, I forgot that the god decided to save some righteous people. Hey, wait a minute. Didn't Noah wind up getting drunk and naked?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Hey, nobody's perfect...

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

But for the record, God, in his desire for interesting company, created 'all this' as the environment in which that company could develop. Included in that environment is the free will that Spinoza rejected. In order not to compromise that free will, God had to make his presence known only when earnestly sought.

If such an entity existed, why would revealing itself have any affect on free will? Is there a set of rules (which limit our free will) associated with or implied by the existence of this entity?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

If such an entity existed, why would revealing itself have any affect on free will?

The first and most obvious reason is the removal of your freedom to doubt.
His perceptible presence completely eliminates that.

Quote:

Is there a set of rules (which limit our free will) associated with or implied by the existence of this entity?

At first blush I'd say none but if there is one it would be that the basis for belief not be completely obscured. It may be camouflaged or counterfeited but not completely concealed.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It sounds like you are saying, in essence, "you gotta have Faith". That this being chooses not to reveal itself, other than by inference and even that cannot be nailed down, otherwise it blocks the Faith by giving you direct knowledge.

This is essentially the lesson from The Temptation in the Wilderness, is it not?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
It sounds like you are saying, in essence, "you gotta have Faith".

The way you put that implies that faith must be plucked from thin air. As I said last time, that 'rule' that you asked about is that the basis for faith must not be totally obscured. It is there to be seen. It gets abundantly clear if you actively seek it.

Quote:

That this being chooses not to reveal itself, other than by inference and even that cannot be nailed down, otherwise it blocks the Faith by giving you direct knowledge.

Again, he chooses not to reveal himself unless you seek him. Prior to that those 'inferences', while not without other plausible explainations, become so blatantly obvious after the fact that you wonder why they aren't more widely recognized.

Quote:

This is essentially the lesson from The Temptation in the Wilderness, is it not?

I usually follow your reasoning ok but I don't see the connection here. The son of God was as inextricably tied to his earthly existence and body with all its sufferings as any man and no doubt wanted to see the end of them, but he was never in doubt about his or his father's nature or existence.

Where is the parallel you see?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

If such an entity existed, why would revealing itself have any affect on free will? Is there a set of rules (which limit our free will) associated with or implied by the existence of this entity?

I think rather it is the opposite, my take on the matter is that This God stepped into the shadows in order to allow man to exercise his free will to rule his self in order that man may learn the consequences first hand, creating a point of reference for any future challenge, enforcing the case for mans need for Gods governance.

During this time this God would only intervene to ensure a) mankind have not placed themselves in danger of annihilating themselves and b) preparations for reparation are not interrupted. I doubt that God would be interested for instance in who wins the superbowl, or helping someone find their keys, but also there is no reason for him to intervene in something that is a direct result of mans governance, this includes wars, famine, pestilence etc.

The bible is IMO that explains why we are where we are, what provisions are made to help us to cope with the current order should we seek it, and a promise of a better one.

Free will would not be negated by Gods presence, but without precedence, would we ever completely accept the rule of this God as better for us? I am not convinced.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Wouldn't you already have to believe in this god before you chose to "actively seek him" as you put it?

Doesn't that imply an act of faith as a starting point?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Wouldn't you already have to believe in this god before you chose to "actively seek him" as you put it?

Doesn't that imply an act of faith as a starting point?

Surely someone as grounded in science as you knows that you sometimes have to start with hypothesis based on some clue. For example, the current search for 'dark matter and energy' for which we have only circumstantial evidence, or the search for extra-terrestrial life for which we have even less evidence. Could you say that the scientists perusing that search are going on blind faith?

And as I've said already, the grounds for picking God as a hypothesis cannot be completely concealed. We've already had many discussions about numerous reasons for proposing 'God' from the clues in physics and biology.

But the best clues come from within yourself. The clues can be ignored or suppressed or over-ridden but I've never known anyone who didn't have any.
Finding the clues is not the hard part, the challenge is deciding to follow them.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Ok, let me see if I got this. Your answer to the proposition of "what if no religions are correct, but there still is a god" is that if such an entity existed it must have created the Universe because anything else is uninteresting. And that it created the Universe in such a way that its own presence and actions are virtually indistinguishable from nature. And it did this because it is primarily concerned for our free will. But it didn't hide its presence completely because that would be duplicitous. Instead it leaves tiny cracks in nature which imply its presence and its hand in events. And those cracks are more easily visible to people who are actively seeking to find the creator.

Is that about right?

1 Reply

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know