And it's a form of idolatory, a false conception of the nature of God. — Wayfarer

All concepts of God are false because, if there is a God, its true nature would be inconceivable to us puny mortals. Hence all concepts of God are idolatrous, which is why the ancient Hebrews started to lose the plot when they made their rules against idolatry, echoed by the Protestant iconoclasts of the Reformation. They were just switching one form of idolatry for another, without realizing it.

What seems a better approach to me is to acknowledge that any concept we have of God will be idolatrous, and to accept that that's not a bad thing. It also prevents one looking down one's nose at 'less sophisticated religions'. A tribesman's carved wooden totem is as valid as a Shiva lingam or a Pure Lander's chanting of Amitabha, or a Tibetan Lama's spinning of the prayer wheels, or Paul Tillich's Ground of Being, or Aquinas's First Cause. I suspect Tillich would agree with me, but I'm not so sure about Aquinas.

It seems that we'd have to be God to understand God. Hence the fascination of the incarnation myth and Feuerbach. Unless we have "direct access" to God (which means what? unless we are God? or the totality knowing itself?), we would seem to need concepts and feelings as a medium. Even if we are God, we'd need a dialectical process to make this clear, we'd only be potentially God. And this wouldn't be the ground of being or timeless authority that is usually craved. But, in any of these cases, God for us would always be concepts and feelings. (How we could insure others that claims of "direct access" were not just concepts/feelings? What would that mean, though, if not God as object?)

But all of that overlooks the purported revelation of God in the Biblical tradition. I know there are plenty who will simply dismiss all of it, but I am not among them. So what I was talking of, in respect of 'idolatory', is the reification of deity into some supposed being or form.

Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects. — Terry Eagleton

Review of 'The God Delusion'

Note his phrase: 'in one sense of that word....' - this is what I was driving at. It's a very hard idea to get your head around but it has plenty of precedents.

But all of that overlooks the purported revelation of God in the Biblical tradition. I know there are plenty who will simply dismiss all of it, but I am not among them. So what I was talking of, in respect of 'idolatory', is the reification of deity into some supposed being or form. — Wayfarer

It doesn't overlook it. It recognizes that those books are composed of human words and that the notion that anything so gob-smackingly amazing as the explanation of the entire universe could be rendered in mere words is risible and yet at the same time conceited. It is idolatry because it makes out the words, or the childish images the words conjure up (and even sophisticated images such as Tillich's are childish compared to what any reality would actually have to be like), to be actual images of God.

IMHO this is no less reification than identification of God with a stick, mountain, statue or mantra.

That's one reason why I am drawn to mysticism. It is a process of contemplation of the unknowable rather than an attempt to construct a fancy pile of words that one pretends tells us something about the unknowable.

It recognizes that those books are composed of human words and that the notion that anything so gob-smackingly amazing as the explanation of the entire universe could be rendered in mere words is risible and yet at the same time conceited.

Saying they are 'human words' is basically denying it.

It is the science that says that only human beings are capable of forming an intention, that is conceited.

I too am drawn to mysticism, but I'm not conceited enough to say that I alone understand it, and the ancients didn't.

That's what I'm saying - in ancient philosophy the primary distinction was been 'reality and appearance' - the 'ordinary people' (the hoi polloi) were always fooled by appearances - prisoners in the metaphorical cave - whereas the philosopher ascended by reason into a greater reality. Much of the 'mystical Plato' has been redacted out of the modern interpretations. — Wayfarer

I won't say that Plato wasn't on to something. Actually I think philosophy is about ascension into a greater reality, but this is also in Hegel. It's a question of location perhaps. Are we talking about an enlarged perspective? Better concept-tools? Heights of feeling? Because that's a reality I do not doubt. I don't even mind the elitism in the private sphere. Certainly that's part of the issue. Claims of hidden realities or access to gods have been abused, or that's the perception. But I like the mystical and think the mystical in terms of subjective experience. I don't think there's much of a bias against that, even if there is skepticism, for here too it's easy to imagine a bogus guru.
I think we want happiness and largely map the objective in terms of what resists our desire or offers pleasure.

He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects. — Terry Eagleton

But if that's all "He" is, then where is the personality or value? He looks here like the projection of the PSR (itself perhaps a rule-of-thumb or a prejudice or ambiguous) "outside" the totality. Only a little cognitive dissonance is relieved. One doesn't love or pray to a condition of possibility. It seems we have an obviously anthropomorphic god (that actually works some people, however 'uncool' or 'irrational') or a more sophisticated still-anthropomorphic god (PSR, etc.) Or we can take either negative theology and/or the incarnation myth all of the way. God is meaninglessness or we are all the God worth worrying about. Or some new poet comes along with other options.
Maybe what matters the most is how we position our intellectual selves with respect to this family of 'God' meanings. That is accessible right here and now. Is this not at all related to picking out a nice jacket for October?

Actually I think philosophy is about ascension into a greater reality, but this is also in Hegel. — "Hoo:

I'm tempted to say that philosophy proper spans Plato - Hegel but that might be a bit contentious. But in any case, there's a sense of a vertical dimension, something against which the terms 'higher' and 'lower' can be used in respect of truth. I think that's generally missing since Hegel - actually I think that is the meaning of the Victorian Novella, 'Flatland'.

in respect of Eagleton's quote - recall he was reviewing Dawkins' book. One of Dawkins' claims is that God must be 'more complex than the Universe', which he then says is 'wildly improbable'. So Eagleton (who is no religious apologist by the way) is basically lampooning that.

I did take it out of context. I'm a little familiar with Eagleton. I don't love Dawkins. It occurs to me that lots of people might use "God" in a 'soft' way. They don't pride themselves on sharpening every concept, so they don't appear here, for instance, to defend their views. For some of them, maybe God is like some wisest part of their self, the perfect audience for authentic conversation. So omniscience would be a philosopher's cold version of the wisdom and not the knowledge of God as experienced. As a teen believer, I sometimes experienced God as someone who listened but never spoke. But this was mixed up with sin and Hell and the idea of the Bible as a "magic" authority. The best part of God was the least propositional. God is a person, then --just also what we'd call an imaginary friend -- at least that's how I read my past, anyway.

Nice point about the vertical dimension. I lovedFlatland. I suppose philosophy is to some more about science and to others more about wisdom. I think we need wisdom in order to place science in a greater context. We always already have a philosophy. It's just that there's usually room for improvement. Progress is falling uphill.

"uncaused" refers to a different sense of "cause" from what "cause" refers to."

Quite, how far down this path does philosophy tread? And presumably theology or mysticism carries the baton further?

My basic point is that the cause, or origin is not accessible to us intellectually and like you say "uncaused" is inapplicable. I do also consider that there may be a true uncaused cause, but that it would be way way beyond our humble imaginings. While God in the sense of the origin of our world need not be uncaused in this sense, but just external to our spacetime and spiritual realm(what we normally regard as existing).

Progress is falling uphill... — Hoo

Very wise spiritual book I read a couple of years back - Falling Upwards by an actual monk.

"All concepts of God are false because, if there is a God, its true nature would be inconceivable to us puny mortals. Hence all concepts of God are idolatrous, which is why the ancient Hebrews started to lose the plot when they made their rules against idolatry, echoed by the Protestant iconoclasts of the Reformation. They were just switching one form of idolatry for another, without realizing it."

I agree, one should realise that our externally orientated mind cannot find, or describe God(although it can be described through esoteric systems). The mystic finds and knows God internally. The conceptual tools are different and hinge around the realisation of self, or being, as in some way in touch with God naturally, absent the externally orientated mind.

Saying they are 'human words' is basically denying it. — Wayfarer

I couldn't follow this. Denying what, exactly?

It is the science that says that only human beings are capable of forming an intention, that is conceited.

Which science is that? It's certainly not biology, chemistry or physics, as 'intention' isn't even in the vocabulary of those sciences.

I too am drawn to mysticism, but I'm not conceited enough to say that I alone understand it, and the ancients didn't.

I wasn't implying that you had claimed that you alone understood God, or mysticism. I don't think you said that, nor do I think I ever said you said that.

What I meant was:

AndrewK "All concepts of God are false because, if there is a God, its true nature would be inconceivable to us puny mortals."

Wayfarer: "that overlooks the purported revelation of God in the Biblical tradition"

AndrewK "'It doesn't overlook it. It recognizes that those books are composed of human words."

So what I meant was that to say they are 'human compositions' - if that is what you mean - is to deny that they are revealed truths.

Why must God be beginningless and uncaused? — Metaphysician Undercover

To avoid an infinite regress. If everything that has a beginning has a cause and if this proposed God has a beginning then it has a cause. What caused God? So the cosmological argument claims that God doesn't have a beginning and so doesn't have a cause. However, this contradicts the initial premise that everything has a beginning. Therefore, the cosmological argument refutes itself.

Only if you consider God 'a thing' - every compounded thing has a beginning. Find something that is not compounded, that has a beginning, if you want to argue your case.

Can you give me an example of a non-compounded thing (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

The argument that 'everything has a beginning' refers to 'things'. God is not 'a thing', so the argument does not, as you say, 'refute itself'.

But, as a way of focussing on the subject, try and think of one thing that is not compounded, i.e., made of parts.

Something not composed of parts. The argument that 'everything has a beginning' refers to 'things'. God is not 'a thing', so the argument does not, as you say, 'refute itself'.

But, as a way of focussing on the subject, try and think of one thing that is not compounded, i.e., made of parts. — Wayfarer

So, like the fundamental waves/particles(/superstrings/whatever) that make up the universe?

They're not composed of anything. Therefore, if non-compounded things don't have a beginning then the fundamental waves/particles(/superstrings/whatever) that make up the universe don't have a beginning. Therefore there's no need to posit God to explain the origin of the universe.

Very cool. What I had in mind was the crash of a worldview or some self-identification that rips one open so that one has to come up with richer synthesis of the self ---a synthesis of what one was and what one crashed into. For me youth was a sequence of unstable positions (highs and lows), falling upward into greater complexity, until, well, this sort of endless noon. I still read things, work on the details, but I feel a hell of lot more found than lost. And yet it I did this finding myself. I don't at all assume it's universally valid. Experience suggests otherwise. Maybe we all need "religion" customized for our unique wiring.

I read it as 'composed by humans'.

the fundamental waves/particles(/superstrings/whatever) — Michael

Oh, whatever! Hey thanks so much for clearing that up. We can all sleep more soundly tonight.

Maybe we all need "religion" customized for our unique wiring. — Hoo

Right! Another great book I read, years ago, by sociologist Peter Berger, 'The Heretical Imperative'. The gist was, in the olden days, you were told what to believe, 'heresy' means 'deciding what to believe'. Whereas nowadays we all have to 'decide what to believe' - hence the title.

Oh, whatever! Hey thanks so much for clearing that up. We can all sleep more soundly tonight. — Wayfarer

Your attempt to avoid is obvious. The fundamental things that make up the universe are not compounded. Therefore, if non-compounded things do not have a beginning then the universe does not have a beginning and so we don't need to posit God to explain its origin.

At least that's what I think Andrew is saying. — Πετροκότσυφας

Perfect. Thank you for that. That was exactly the distinction I was going to point out, until I saw that you had already done it in your post. Yours is expressed better than I would have though.

"Therefore, the cosmological argument refutes itself"


God is not a thing, but rather something supernatural.

The fundamental things that make up the universe are not compounded — Michael

What 'fundamental thing' are you talking about? And if you know what it is, please invite me to your Nobel ceremony.

Well, if you think that is 'well expressed....' then I hesitate to ask what you really meant.

If the Standard Model is correct then bosons and fermions. If superstring theory is correct then superstring. Another theory suggests quantum foam.

Regardless, it seems that we don't need God at all. The premise of the cosmological argument is either false or doesn't apply to the universe.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but this is a discussion about a philosophical argument.

Yes, and I've shown that the cosmological argument fails.

I don't know if people here have been following the media coverage of the LHC, but physics is facing what it is calling 'the nightmare scenario'. This has to do with the idea that the Higgs boson might be the end of particle physics. A large part of the 'nightmare scenario' is the 'unnaturalness' of the Standard Model. 'Unnaturalness' refers to the fact that there are certain values which don't seem to fall out of any equation, but which are 'just so' - and one of their major consequences is that life, the universe, and everything, exists.

This actually is one of the major motivations behind the 'multiverse conjecture' - the idea that if only this universe has these qualities, and all the 'other ones' don't, then the appearance of contrivance can be avoided.

Of course this is all vastly controversial, hugely speculative, and the rest, but one thing is for sure: that you can in no way appeal to 'strings, foam, or whatever' to demonstrate that:

the cosmological argument fails — Michael

None of that changes the fact that something must be the fundamental thing from which macroscopic objects are composed. It might be fermions, it might be superstring, it might be quantum foam, or it might be something else. Regardless, given that it isn't composed of parts, and given that you've said that only things composed of parts must have a beginning, it then follows that these fundamental things don't require a beginning. Therefore, God is not required to explain the origin of the universe.

Furthermore, you're shifting the goalposts. If I can't use current physical theory to attack the cosmological argument then you can't use current physical theory to defend the cosmological argument. So how do you defend the claim that everything has a beginning and must have a cause?

All-in-all, it seems that you're just engaging in special pleading.