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 .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.
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.