The Experience of God

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The Experience of God

Post by huckelberry »

dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:42 pm

The question we might raise, if that's the type of idea we think is necessary, is why are we calling God the ground of being and not a superhero, seemingly as made up as God? Can not an imagined superman who seems greater than God in every way, be the ground of being ? If not why not? Why must it be the imagined God and not the imagined superhero? Of course we have to first assume there must be something as the ground. It could simply be there is nothing as the ground. We just hope there must be.

......
I think there's more to answer to for a God idea than the notion that there must be a ground of being and we must think of that as God. We can't really conceive of how a being could do magical things, like, we'll just go with, raise people from the dead. We simply assume it happens and can happen because we define god as being able to do what he wants. But at this point that's just an imagined idea. How do we account for someone being able to raise someone from the dead? If we can't conceive of how such an act is done, how do we turn that imagined idea into something a real character does? Or how do we show a shapeless timeless one, as Hart says God must be, really exists? It feels like such an action defines God into non-existence then claims he exists but we simply can't see him, hear him, show him, or really conceive of him.
Stem, you wonder if perhaps there is no ground of being. I can see as straightforward suspecting that the ground of being is not even remotely the sort of thing that would say hello to you or tell you to respect your neighbor. If there is existence then there is some fundamental principals of that existence, the ground. Particularly to our modern mind it seems possible that the ground of being has zero caring .
I think you make valid observations about the matter of miracles which people normally link to God. It is problematic to see the ontological argument demonstrating miracles are to be hoped for. It might be noted that Tillich with his interest in ground of being did not believe miracles happen.

I took a little time to do a bit of review of what Anselm was thinking. I find it clear that his view of the world was completely inclosed in the general Platonic view that ideas were the basic form of reality. He thought in terms of the chain of being. He looks at living, beauty, moral love , harmony central parts of existence. He figures that the basic pricipals ideas of those things would be included in the most fundamental principals that control existence. He sees the combination of those principals to be God. In the context of a real world we live in the combination of those principals must exist.

But we now are much less inclined to think those principals are the top of a chain of being or that calling ideas the basis of being is the best description of existence. (well that discussion does continue) I have mixed reactions. I find it easy to be skeptical of any chain of being. It seems possible existence is interelationships which work out in a variety forms. there are piles of sand and there are beautiful horses. Still I find the existence of life harmony beauty and love in this huge universe ordered in patterns with enormous strength to at least hint at something like that chain of being. The riches of harmony and order are very large.I think that draws a circle about a mystery which we call God. That does not say much about how accurate or farfetched various stories people of told about God are.

I do think that stories that contradict God as the source of life beauty and harmony are problematic. Why would God choose to contradict his nature? Or if the ground of being is the source of life but not the sort of order which chooses anything then it would not contradict its nature.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: The Experience of God

Post by dastardly stem »

huckelberry wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:53 pm

Stem, you wonder if perhaps there is no ground of being. I can see as straightforward suspecting that the ground of being is not even remotely the sort of thing that would say hello to you or tell you to respect your neighbor. If there is existence then there is some fundamental principals of that existence, the ground. Particularly to our modern mind it seems possible that the ground of being has zero caring .
I think you make valid observations about the matter of miracles which people normally link to God. It is problematic to see the ontological argument demonstrating miracles are to be hoped for. It might be noted that Tillich with his interest in ground of being did not believe miracles happen.

I took a little time to do a bit of review of what Anselm was thinking. I find it clear that his view of the world was completely inclosed in the general Platonic view that ideas were the basic form of reality. He thought in terms of the chain of being. He looks at living, beauty, moral love , harmony central parts of existence. He figures that the basic pricipals ideas of those things would be included in the most fundamental principals that control existence. He sees the combination of those principals to be God. In the context of a real world we live in the combination of those principals must exist.

But we now are much less inclined to think those principals are the top of a chain of being or that calling ideas the basis of being is the best description of existence. (well that discussion does continue) I have mixed reactions. I find it easy to be skeptical of any chain of being. It seems possible existence is interelationships which work out in a variety forms. there are piles of sand and there are beautiful horses. Still I find the existence of life harmony beauty and love in this huge universe ordered in patterns with enormous strength to at least hint at something like that chain of being. The riches of harmony and order are very large.I think that draws a circle about a mystery which we call God. That does not say much about how accurate or farfetched various stories people of told about God are.

I do think that stories that contradict God as the source of life beauty and harmony are problematic. Why would God choose to contradict his nature? Or if the ground of being is the source of life but not the sort of order which chooses anything then it would not contradict its nature.
Thanks Huckelberry. Yes, I still think this ground of being path is a bit of nonsense. I don't see God in there at all, and I'm not sure we need the ground of being explanation. I certainly don't see it as presenting a conclusive case, as Hart seems to suggest. Ultimately I think he failed because he simply doesn't know or care what it is to be atheist. Its really just a view held after looking at the cases for God and thinking...I don't really see anything substantial there, nothing convincing. If he wants to present a solid case he needs much more than arguments from ignorance, begging the question and all of that. I'd question how the ground of being idea got transformed into God--"well, we have a good explanation of what's behind it all and that's God so therefore God exists." For one thing, God is so poorly defined, it seems to me, he can be said to be anything and nothing all at the same time. That means he can fit into any hiding place. And, I can't see how that defines the God of, say, the Old Testament, or new, or Book of Mormon or any other ancient God. It's an imagined thought. And not much more, it seems to me.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The Experience of God

Post by Chap »

dastardly stem wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:28 pm
[...] Ultimately I think [Hart] failed because he simply doesn't know or care what it is to be atheist. Its really just a view held after looking at the cases for God and thinking...I don't really see anything substantial there, nothing convincing. [...] For one thing, God is so poorly defined, it seems to me, he can be said to be anything and nothing all at the same time. That means he can fit into any hiding place. And, I can't see how that defines the God of, say, the Old Testament, or new, or Book of Mormon or any other ancient God. It's an imagined thought. And not much more, it seems to me.
I think that puts it quite reasonably.

I am not an atheist in the sense that there is a well-defined entity called <insert name of deity> that I deny exists, as in "A hamburger made with a meat patty with a ten-inch thick slice of cheese on top, all in a bun? There's no such thing, of that I'm sure." My position is, rather, that when believers in Abrahamic religions use terms such as <insert name of deity> in their sentences, I cannot see that the words they use, when carefully examined, have any coherent or useful referent, and so I decline to use them in speech that is intended to say anything serious and meaningful.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Post Reply