Define God

Are you saying God has neither purpose nor free will?

I think the question (a valid one) should be "What do we mean by the word, God?" This recognizes the concept as problematical.
By contrast, the usual (and invalid) way of phrasing this "theological" question has been "Do you believe in God?" Here the problem inheres not in the concept but the attitude (having or lacking faith) of the individual.
The first has a semblance of inquiry; the second resembles the Inquisition.

I am saying that I am undecided on these points as of now. I look around, and I see purpose everywhere. I see the miraculous interplay of elements that create the harmony that we need to exist. I see chain reactions spanning over millions of years, producing all of nature's wonders.

But if God is 'the living everything', these things are but fractions of God, and in that sense God trancends human notions of purpose and free will.

But to make a logical argument that adresses these issues is a job I have yet to do.

JL

For a proposed definition of the term 'god' look at the thread started on S&R entitled God; puzzle solved. I've posted the thoughts on this thread as well, but it seems you overlooked them with or without intention.

This is, in fact, the title of this topic. Whether God is a person with free will, purpose and power is subject to debate, of course. But it would certainly be part of his definition.

I certainly haven't overlooked your other topic. I'm just trying to avoid posting my responses twice.

Cyracuz, I looked at your definition of God on the other thread and find it to be the least objectionable one available. But I cannot consider the "Everything" that your pantheistic conception "points to" (and at least your definition HAS a referent; the Christian God does not) equivalent to Nature, Reality, Brahma, etc. (but not Yaweh, God, or Allah). Moreover, it is not "alive" in the narrower biological sense, for--as far as we know--it does not/cannot reproduce itself.

But neither can I, since my vasectomy.

What is the biological definition of 'alive'.

Any given organism has the characteristics that there is activity within them above the atomic and sub-atomic levels.

In the concept of the 'living everything' we have to consider this entity as one organism. When we do that we see that it corresponds to all aspects of the definition of 'life', although there is one criteria we cannot verify. That is reproduction. We cannot know if 'the living everything' can reproduce itself anymore than a cell in my body can know if I am capable of it.

And the 'living everything' is similar to, but not the equivalent of nature and reality. There is nature and reality, but there's more to it. Nature and reality are energies. It is an established fact that energy cannot exist without it's source. This source is included in 'the living everything'.

Neologist offers: "This is, in fact, the title of this topic. Whether God is a person with free will, purpose and power is subject to debate, of course. But it would certainly be part of his definition."

This is the problem as I see it: Neologist is actually not concerned with DEFINING the concept as a human construction, but with arriving at a DESCRIPTION of God. And this presumes the existence of something in the world rather than something in our heads.

Cryacuz, your conception of life here is, of course, much broader than the narrower biologistic definition. I too find comfort in the notion of a Living Everything, similar to the Hindu's Brahma. But my comfort does not mean that it is--philosophically speaking--true. I know Brahma only as an intuitive "realization" of the nature of my immediate experience. The Whole IS its parts (or better said, for me, the parts are the whole). You, I, Neologist, our computers, etc. etc., ad infinitum, ARE Brahma--or if you insist, God.

Cyracuz, you say: "I LOOK AROUND, AND I SEE PURPOSE EVERYWHERE." I do not SEE purpose anywhere even though I attribute it to the actions of humans. I assume that, like me, other humans make plans and have images of future outcomes, etc.; the rest of animal life is most likely programmed by instinct rather than conscious purpose.
anInstead of "seeing" purpose, I "think" purpose in the lives of my fellow humans. When I attribute purpose to the rest of nature, I am thinking teleologically, and that is very problematical, anthropological projection of human qualities onto the non-human world.

Similarly, by the way, I do not see "cause" and "effect" in the world; I THINK them. The concepts help me to make sense of my experience, but they do not serve as actual descriptions of events in the world.

Cyracuz, you say: "I LOOK AROUND, AND I SEE PURPOSE EVERYWHERE." I do not SEE purpose anywhere even though I attribute it to the actions of humans. I assume that, like me, other humans make plans and have images of future outcomes, etc.; the rest of animal life is most likely programmed by instinct rather than conscious purpose.
anInstead of "seeing" purpose, I "think" purpose in the lives of my fellow humans. When I attribute purpose to the rest of nature, I am thinking teleologically, and that is very problematical, anthropological projection of human qualities onto the non-human world.

Similarly, by the way, I do not see "cause" and "effect" in the world; I THINK them. The concepts help me to make sense of my experience, but they do not serve as actual descriptions of events in the world.

Cyracuz, you say: "I LOOK AROUND, AND I SEE PURPOSE EVERYWHERE." I do not SEE purpose anywhere even though I attribute it to the actions of humans. I assume that, like me, other humans make plans and have images of future outcomes, etc.; the rest of animal life is most likely programmed by instinct rather than conscious purpose.
anInstead of "seeing" purpose, I "think" purpose in the lives of my fellow humans. When I attribute purpose to the rest of nature, I am thinking teleologically, and that is very problematical, anthropological projection of human qualities onto the non-human world.

Similarly, by the way, I do not see "cause" and "effect" in the world; I THINK them. The concepts help me to make sense of my experience, but they do not serve as actual descriptions of events in the world.

By the way, Cryacuz, I not so much in disagreement with you as I am trying to provide nuances that reflect my personal orientation. Indeed, I am virtually always in agreement with your thinking.
I recall looking at a book on Norwegian cooking, and aside from the abundance of fresh fish (which I love), I was appalled by the insipidity of your cuisine (gingersnap cookies, sliced cucumbers, minature meat balls, etc.*). But--I recall saying to myself--if I lived in Norway I would be able to have regular philosophical visits with Cyracuz.

* I am one who loves--who needs--spicy and colorful food: mexican, Indian, hunanand sechuwan chinese, italian, etc..

By the way, Cryacuz, I not so much in disagreement with you as I am trying to provide nuances that reflect my personal orientation. Indeed, I am virtually always in agreement with your thinking.
I recall looking at a book on Norwegian cooking, and aside from the abundance of fresh fish (which I love), I was appalled by the insipidity of your cuisine (gingersnap cookies, sliced cucumbers, minature meat balls, etc.*). But--I recall saying to myself--if I lived in Norway I would be able to have regular philosophical visits with Cyracuz. I have similar thoughts about Fresco in the UK.

* I am one who loves--who needs--spicy and colorful food: mexican, Indian, hunan and sechuwan chinese, italian, etc..

Whoa.. how come the identical post filter doesn't work for you JL...

And norwegian traditional cooking is a dreary matter. No argument here. Luckily most norwegians seem to agree, and as a result we are more than happy to check out the alternative cultures' cuisine.

What I mean when I see purpose all around, to return to the topic, is that I see the symmetry of the world, the remarkable interplay between huge astral objects and tiny insects. There seems to be one common goal that unites all the many aspects of existence, and that is life. Survival. There is, of course, a chance that all this is coincidence, but that doesn't diminish it's mystery in my eyes.

How can something be programmed by instinct and not bear witness of a purpose on some level? If the answer is that the organism does because it can, then an answer that would not defy logic, even though it might not be a true answer, would be that purpose is to do what we can do.

But I am uncertain about how this fits into the thought about 'the living everything'. That thought is relatively fresh in my mind, and all input is greatly valued.

I agree that "the universe works." That is to say, it is not a total chaos, although as part of it I would be chaotic too, and as such the chaos of nature would seem orderly to me.

By the way, I've heard that--in this harmonious, world--hundreds (or more) of life forms (species) become extinct each "year" (I don't have the figures, obviously). But the issue of order/chaos is very problematical, I should think, if we take into account that it includes our (the observers') nature and if we consider it at the level of quantum mechanics.

The anthropic principle deals with this very simply. If the world wasnt the way it is, we wouldnt be around to observe it.

Unless we believe that order can come from chaos we have to assume that all is in order.

Logically, if a symmetry emerges from apparent chaos, then this seeming chaos is a necessity for the symmetry. I am not so sure I believe in the concept of random.

The dualism of our distinction between order and chaos is itself problematic. What is order for one type of observer is chaos for another type. As Focus reminds us, all is relationship: change the subject and the object changes because the object's nature (at least as an experience) results from its relationship with the subject.

Good point, Steve.

CYracuz, two points:
Can we believe in chaos but not randomness?

If symmetry emerges out of chaos (i.e., form out of formlessness) should we not consider them aspects of (necessary for) each other (ying-yang)?