Hotseat! God

I'm hoping this will be epic.





(EDIT: EPIC FAIL)





Quick reader warning... THERE ARE AS OF YET NO ANTI-GOD ARGUMENTS IN THIS POST!!!!

Someone once said that all argument was a clarification of semantics... or something to that effect.

It would be good to start with a definition of what we mean by god, since I can, as of present, think of at least three distinct conceptions. I would also like to clarify how abstractly or specifically we want to address the idea of god. Do we include the concepts of, for example, the immortal soul or the afterlife as inseparable from the "model" of god, or are these things merely additions to the primary thesis that, quite simply, there exists a being that "all men speak of as God" (Aquinas, Summa Theologica) regardless of the existence of any other seemingly related theological monads?

Having chosen to begin, I only now realize how useless it will be for me to start arguing against a conception of god that none of you actually happen to accept!

What I propose now is that we work to systematize our definitions of god.

To begin, I would like to pose the definition of god that I personally ascribe to. Let's call this definition GOD 1. The next proposed definition will be GOD 2, the next GOD 3, and so on to GOD n. The reason why I ascribe to this definition is because I personally consider it to be the strongest definition of god that I have ever encountered. The word "impervious" comes to mind whenever I approach the task of attacking it with the usual atheist criticisms. Unfortunately, I expect it may be much too broad for most of you. I may be wrong.

GOD 1 ≡ (Abrahamic dualism) or immortal universality---i.e. god (petit-g)---with mankind as mortal, finite particularity. When looking at the Christian notions of God (Big-G) and Satan, this GOD 1---god (petit-g)---encompasses both. The antagonistic Biblical narrative is thus rendered allegorical. The clash between God (Big-G) and Satan is nothing more than the internal contradiction of god (petit-g) with "him"-self. As universality, there is nothing that god is not---i.e. including purest good and purest evil.

Mankind is thus god's solution to this self-contradiction. Each particular, individual mortal has a choice between good and evil and the multitude of other opposites that god is forced to fully embrace due to his infinite, universal, and eternal nature. Heaven and hell in the Christian allegory is then nothing more than the good and evil sides of eternity, both of which are also god. The "all good" Christian God is only the good side of true god. To gravitate towards God is to gravitate towards the good, a choice which god "him"-self does not have.

Yet another contradiction, as it were, "solved" by mankind's existence is the contradiction of self doubt---this is the GOD 1 model for Jesus's purpose. On the cross, Jesus proclaims, in an instant of delirium, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" (Matthew 27:46) or "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", as if, for that moment, disbelieving in "him"-self---i.e. "him"/Him as Jesus/God/Holy Spirit. At this point it seems that god not only embraces good and evil but also belief and disbelief at once. The Jesus story is rather unique in the Abrahamic religions for this reason: it is the only one in which God himself, for an instant, becomes an atheist. The common ideal that Jesus died for our sins is rewritten as Jesus disbelieved for our atheism. For, in the end, a true believer will never sin (if one follows Plato's [early] theory of the synonymity between Virtue and Wisdom---a truly Wise [true believing] person, by the fact of his wisdom alone, will never knowingly act against Virtue [never sin]), and yet everyone has sinned. True belief, god realized, is impossible for mortal man. Jesus is then the ultimate contradiction of the infinite within the finite, good and evil, true believer and atheist.

It follows that the reason why god should be worshiped is because of this supreme act of sacrifice in embodying the universal for the sole purpose of creating a pure good while at the same time providing mankind with the dignity of free choice. By creating mortals, god---the infinite, eternal being---allowed for a finite picking and choosing enabled by free will. In other words, a mortal can choose to be a good person and go to heaven while god cannot. God will always be half-heaven and half-hell. What torture!

That being said, I hope you can now understand why I find this specific conception of god (petit-r) to be very beautiful and elegant in both a spiritual and esthetic way. It is also seemingly devoid of the moral contradictions that arise when god is said to consist only of God (Big-G) and is not also inclusive of what is traditionally viewed as Satan.

Unfortunately, I doubt that any of you (I'm talkin' to you, Yoda) are likely to accept this.

In this case, I hope that you will provide your own definition GOD 2. Unless absolutely everything I said in my model GOD 1 is consistent with your beliefs, I would strongly encourage you to propose your own definition. I will by no means attempt to argue with you about your own definition and, rest assured, I will accept yours instantly as the definition to be examined in this thread. If you want to tell me that god is a middle-aged Croatian diplomat, so be it.

To anyone else who has a separate definition, please define it using the GOD n format, so we can keep track.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Your primary definition of GOD 1 encompasses, at its core, this excerpt from Mere Christianity:

Now there's obviously more to this excerpt that does some more explaining of the nature of good and evil, but the primary point is that evil didn't always exist. Instead, it's the result of God's good creations getting screwed up and used poorly (i.e. for evil). The things that provide, for instance, Satan the ability to do evil are necessarily good. It's a pretty brilliant idea, yet largely overlooked because of its simplicity.

Also, there are other aspects of your post that I know I have overlooked, but I will not be able to get to them until I finish my Foucault paper.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Is this a question thread? OK, go ahead, ask me anything.

Or better yet, ask me anything about Jake Gyllenhaal.

Wonderful passage. I think the distinction is quite significant and absolutely merits a completely separate definition. But I'll have to ask you to write it, since you know more about it than I do!

Please propose a separate definition utilizing the prescribed format of classification.

Alright, as I have finished my Foucault paper, I can respond now. For reference, I will be drawing the majority of my information from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and God Hides: A Critique of Religion and a Primer for Faith by Ned Wisnefske.

To begin with, and in the nicest way possible, pantheism is just sexed up atheism. Now, on to the meat.

The concept of god encompasses, in most religions, one of two separate definitions. You have already elaborated on the pantheistic one. In other words, god is beyond the concepts of good and evil—he just exists. And therefore, our concept of good and evil is merely a human point of view that, provided we could comprehend the universe as he does, has no value and would disappear entirely.

The opposite definition, however, presents the idea that God is most definitely good—this is the claim of Christianity (in addition to Islam and Judaism). This God takes sides, loves love, and hates hate; it's a God who wants us to behave in a particular way—the moral way.

Another distinction between these two, provides more clarity into how they each function differently. The god of Pantheism is the collective whole of the universe—he is everything: you, me, and the very keyboard on which I'm typing. Christianity, however, makes the claim that God created the universe and, as such, is not a part of the creation—he is separate from it.

And, once again, it comes right back to the state of the world: Pantheism claims evil is just another part of god. This, however, is "damned nonsense." If you ascribe to this idea you can never point out a thing as bad because your concept of god does not allow such a statement—remember, bad is just another part of god.

Christianity makes no such claim as that of Pantheism. Instead, God is good and there are things in this world that go against his nature—against goodness. In short, the religion of Christianity is an underdog. For many things are broken in our world, and they are placed within our hands to be fixed. More importantly, though, God makes it painfully clear that it is up to us to put things back—to fix what is broken.

(This is where I switch to God Hides momentarily)

There are no assurances that we will be delivered from evil, or even from ourselves, for such assurances of our salvation, or the conquering of evil, would replace faith with knowledge and instill in us moral complacency; we would wipe our boots on the doormat called Earth and wait for our arrival in the Kingdom of Heaven. So in order to turn us to our neighbors, to fix what is broken and take up our own arms against evil, God hides. This is precisely why you cannot find God, nor have a personal relationship with him. If that was possible, we would once again abandon our duties of the moral life and try to strengthen our relationship with him. Once more, moral complacency would be the resulting product.

"Faith is not religious knowledge. Uncertainty and risk remain part of faith. Unlike knowledge, faith realizes it could be wrong."

(There is much more to say from God Hides. However, I believe that the passage above best represents what Wisnefske's book tries to cover and is very relevant to the definition and explanation of God within Christianity.)

Moving back to Mere Christianity, the definition of a good God necessitates the most obvious and painful question: "If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong?" The argument against God that arises from this question, that the universe is too cruel and unjust, is unsound. If we (humans) are just one small piece of this large cosmic show, a show that's bad from start to finish, our idea of its injustice requires us to choose between two alternatives: one, that our idea of injustice is merely a personal one, which thereby precludes me from calling the universe unjust, and that it just doesn't please me; two, we force ourselves to assume that our idea of injustice is the one, and only, part of reality that is full of sense. Sadly, from that second choice, atheism becomes too simple because if the universe had no meaning, we would not have stumbled upon it and its lack of justice.

That, my friend, is what defines God, and it is, indeed, a very bold claim. You will have to wait until tomorrow for me to cover Jesus, though, as I do not have time to do so now: I am exhausted, it's 3AM, and I still have to wake up tomorrow and do some stuff before school.

Personally, throughout my life, I would often find proof of the existence of God, when a lady friend loudly called out his name.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

Shouldn't she have called out, "EARL!!!!!" ?

I think you better go find this God and kick his ass!

LOL, SC, actually a few of the more narcissistic ones screamed out their own name!

kinky

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

It's even better when he brings cigars.

It's pretty clear people are trying to have a serious discussion here. I don't see any reason not to respect that. If you're not interested in it, there are plenty of other outlets for goofing off or making bawdy jokes.

oh please . its a movie site,,and i thought george burns as god is pretty funny.

sheesh.

go back to talkkin about invisible mythological entities.

maybe next week we can talk about zeus or apollo.

Yeah, it's a movie site with a section for non-movie discussion. And in that section, someone's started a thread about God, and several very long, obviously very thought-out, in-depth posts have followed.

I'm not sure how this is arguable: people are trying to have a serious discussion, and several posters (not just you) are ignoring that and cracking jokes. That's not very considerate. The fact that you brush the whole thing off (though I'm guessing you didn't read any of it?) as being like "Zeus or Apollo" just demonstrates that you don't have any interest in the thread, so I see no reason to get in the way of others who do.

I just saw it was Planet News' thread and did not expect it to be all that serious. Plus I couldn't get through all of that first post.

I think this subject is something Yoda takes very seriously and he wants us to give our respect to it.

Personally, I think a few laughs aren't bad, and I think that, in the past, if a thread had branched off into something else, Yoda or someone else would have said something to the effect of, Things like that happen. It's a thread. Don't take it seriously.

So, I am a little surprised at his reaction.

Yes, when threads branch off from topic to topic, it's inevitable and nobody should get too worked up about it. That isn't the case here; we have some very long, very involved posts, followed by a few one-liners. It isn't a long discussion that has evolved into related topics, it's people who clearly have no interest in the thread cluttering it up right off the bat. That's completely different.

You don't have to respect the topic at all. Respecting the fact that there are other members who want to have a serious discussion would be nice, though.

But some people love to go into other threads and post a ton of crap which basically belittles the thread, inverts it and turns it into a kiddie playground. I haven't understood that at all. I also don't think it matters what the thread's called or what its aesthetic value is. Anyway, I'm probably guilty of it too but I thought I'd mention that, again.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

THIS POST IS JUST "BOOKKEEPING"; STILL NO ANTI-GOD ARGUMENTS YET

Not really if you look at GOD 1, which is what I am talking about: not* pantheism. There is clearly a role for the supernatural in GOD 1. Jesus exists in GOD 1, and he is magic. He was reincarnated and stuff. Now... unless there is some form of supernaturalism apart from religion, I highly doubt that any form of atheism ascribes to the reincarnation of Jesus or the physical existence of Heaven and Hell. I think by "sexed up" you might mean poeticized or something along those lines, but you forget that atheism has a poetry of its own.
___

*I admit that I inserted the word "pantheism" into GOD 1 after your previous post, but upon further consideration, I don't think the word should be connected with GOD 1, because it is simply not that same thing.

It'd be good if you didn't lump all of your opposition together (however merited this action might be!). That's precisely what I'm trying to do now by separating out the particular definitions of god. I will agree that there are different kinds of atheism, but none of them are the pantheism I outline in GOD 1.

If you want to define pantheism as GOD 2 or GOD 3 (depending on whatever your following definition is), go right ahead, but I don't think anyone here is really going to argue for pantheism alone.

Regardless... I'm not going to argue with anyone here about definitions of god. Whatever you think it is, that's what I think it is. I don't believe in any god even on a minimal level. I am a strict materialist. For me, there is simply nothing else beyond the here and now. In fact, I think it might even be possible for the phrase "here and now" to be taken literally, if you accept postmodernist conceptions of reality. For me, life is always but an absurd moment away from utter nihilism. Thank goodness for the Super-Ego or else I'd go insane, right?!?!?

But seriously... whatever you think god is; that's what I'll argue against.

I'm going to call this CLAIM A, because I think it's important. From what I can tell, you are here representing one side of the Euthyphro dilemma. What I mean here is that, if you accept the idea that "being loved by the gods is what makes something holy", then holiness/piety/good is immaterial for the gods (or God) themselves; or rather, the good becomes arbitrary. Euthyphro accepted both this idea and the idea that good and evil have value in themselves apart from God, hence his dilemma.

I'm going to call this GOD 2.

GOD 2 ≡ (Abrahamic monism) the idea that God is most definitely good—this is the claim of Christianity (in addition to Islam and Judaism). This God takes sides, loves love, and hates hate; it's a God who wants us to behave in a particular way—the moral way.

Some of these may be redundant, but we can trim later.

1. God is most definitely good—loves love, hates hate.
2. God takes sides.
3. God wants humans to behave in a moral way.
4. There are things in this world that go against his nature—goodness.
5. God makes it clear that it is up to us to "fix what is broken" [clarify].

Okay, but this is not GOD 1. God clearly wants things in GOD 1, and what he wants is the good. I just want to make this very clear. I've never found pantheism profound or impressive either. GOD 1, on the other hand, is a solution for some of GOD 2's problems while strictly maintaining allegiance within Catholic traditions. Though it may subsume Christianity, it does not reject it, as pantheism most clearly does by rejecting a personal God. GOD 1 merely posits different interpretations of the exact same phenomenon.

But it really doesn't matter what I think!!!! God is whatever you want it to be! I just wanted to keep GOD 1 on tab.

To be clear, we are now arguing from GOD 2, with no reference whatsoever to GOD 1.

Well, sorry. I honestly saw the name Planet News in the first post and initially thought, this is gonna be nonsense. His reputation -- at least my own perspective of it, so far -- got the better of me.

I also don't see many long, very involved posts here so far, and I wonder where they're at. I see about two from Planet News and John McClane. The rest are my jokes, followed by a few from Dexter and Earl, and now we're onto this!

I don't know what to say. I think I'm done. Might as well be done so the guys can get back to their discussion already in progress.



See, I see something like this in the first post here, and I think, HUH?

Well, I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that beforehand, but I think even skimming the posts makes it fairly clear. Just my opinion, though.

Well, yeah, that's kind of my point. It hasn't gotten going yet, but every "serious" post has clearly had a lot of time and thought put into it.

Look, I'm sure some of you will think I'm being a jerk here. I've resigned myself to the fact that any one who wants to be serious about something is bound to be labeled a stick in the mud by anyone who doesn't. Cool with me; if someone thinks that about me based on this, they're not someone I'm interested in trying to impress, anyway.

All I'm doing is politely asking that an obviously serious discussion not be made light of just for the heck of it. Think whatever you want about me for saying it, but this is why we have threads: so that some people can talk about this without other people having to read it, and vice-versa. I'm not surprised (or even particularly upset) that this happened, but I am surprised that it required any explanation beyond the initial nudge.

As planet says, it's just "bookkeeping." The discussion is liable to get pretty involved and confusing, so he's sort of keep track of where we are in it.