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.And it's a form of idolatory, a false conception of the nature of God. — Wayfarer
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
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 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.
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
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.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
Actually I think philosophy is about ascension into a greater reality, but this is also in Hegel. — "Hoo:
Progress is falling uphill... — Hoo
I couldn't follow this. Denying what, exactly?Saying they are 'human words' is basically denying it. — Wayfarer
Which science is that? It's certainly not biology, chemistry or physics, as 'intention' isn't even in the vocabulary of those sciences.It is the science that says that only human beings are capable of forming an intention, that is conceited.
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.I too am drawn to mysticism, but I'm not conceited enough to say that I alone understand it, and the ancients didn't.
Why must God be beginningless and uncaused? — Metaphysician Undercover
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
the fundamental waves/particles(/superstrings/whatever) — Michael
Maybe we all need "religion" customized for our unique wiring. — Hoo
Oh, whatever! Hey thanks so much for clearing that up. We can all sleep more soundly tonight. — Wayfarer
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.At least that's what I think Andrew is saying. — Πετροκότσυφας
The fundamental things that make up the universe are not compounded — Michael
the cosmological argument fails — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.