A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by prof »

"Evil" is a theological term for badness. "God" may be viewed as a theological term for goodness. More exactly, God is a bundle, a blend of all the Intrinsic Values rolled into one. For some examples of Intrinsic-values [abbreviated as 'I-values'] are:Liberty, Community, Integrity, Morality, Authenticity, Beauty, Truth, Love, Self-Actualization, Democracy, Honesty, Fraternity, Autonomy, Prosperity, Energy, etc., etc.

Think of all the uncountably-high values combined into One - and you have a definition of "Gd." This also can serve as that Meaning of Life that so many are searching for. Some refer to this as: "My ever-present help." Some speak of it as "Infinite Substance, upon which I always can draw."

If you put your focus on this "invisible playmate" or whatever you want to call the universal force that is beyond the comprehension of mere humans; and if you employ your awareness of it as the personage to whom you address your thanks for any blessings that you appreciate ....anything that goes right in your life - or for Life itself {for G can be thought of as "the Life of lives" or the "Creator of all creativity," etc.} - then you see what a difference this makes in the world of your imagination - and you'll thank G for arranging for me to talk to you about it.

Naturalist/Humanists or Atheists won't like my speaking in this vein, but I am trying to get you to be more positive in your outlook. We can't afford the luxury of a negative thought when there is so much hurt and corruption! We need to be constructive! G is all-good; knows nothing of evil, just knows how to help when we ask. Omnipresent? Yes. All-powerful? No. Yet the good, when systematically organized and mobilized, and practiced, is powerful enough. So let's get busy in an effective manner!!

Why can't humans explain how G does it, how G hears your thoughts, and solves your problems? It is because of our size relative to the known Universe. We are to the Universe as a quark in an atom, in a cell in our thigh is to us. ...or maybe we're even tinier ! So how could we possibly see the Big Picture??? How could we understand or comprehend the Meaning of the Universe. We're just a speck on the surface of a minor planet of a minor star, located near the edge of a minor galaxy. I say 'speck' for even to say 'worm' would be an exaggeration. So it is essential that we have Humility.

Comments? Questions? Improvements? Constructive thinking - in contrast to destructive thinking..... is welcomed.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by prof »

The o.p. emphasized the value of humility. It also explained that G could be understood as all of the I-Values rolled into One. That One may be addressed as: "My Precious God," or more conveniently, as "Precious God." .... or, if you wish, as: "Lord."

G serves as an entity to which we can direct our thanks. It is healthy for us morally to have 'an attitude of gratitude.' When we are grateful, when our hearts overflow with thanksgiving, the fact is that we enjoy a better life than those who cannot bring themselves to count their blessings.

We can pray, "Precious God, come tome as Health!!" and it works - provided you are aware of the ingredients of good health, and fasting-and-rest as a method of recovery. (The best rest is sleep, of course.) Or one may pray, "God come to me as Prosperity, that I might share my abundance with others." It helps to be aware of the truth that There are no shortages. Or one may request Inspiration. Or Friendship.

G answers by putting bright ideas into one's head, so that one can then take action that is effective.

Comments?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by prof »

.

God is love.


Hence God wants us to love one another.

.

Ergo: Do so

...and you then will be in harmony with God.



What do you say?
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Necromancer »

Sure! Then Deism? :wink: :)

Deism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by prof »

Hi, Necromancer

I do not see how that "ism" or any other follows from what I said. And why "deist" more than "theist"?? Are you a modern, 'warm',, deist perhaps? Explain where you stand: in what do you have faith?

Labels are of low priority as values to us ...worth very little in the scheme of things.

Defining a term, in this case a theological one, and then spinning out some of its implications is an analytic activity.
Believing the findings of the analysis, and devoting oneself to it, living it, is something else again. The latter is far more valuable to us than the former. Hopefully what we give ourselves to is based upon a sound analysis.

As to where I stand, I love science, and believe that even Theology can be a science. The experimental (or empirical) aspects of it would be (akin to) the findings of William James, in his classic book, Varieties of Religious Experience.

Comments? Questions?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Nick_A »

Here is an interview with Jacob Needleman on his recent book: "What is God" It begins with:

http://www.watkinsmagazine.com/what-is- ... -Needleman
Q: What new perspective can you bring to the tired debates between atheists and believers about the existence of God? Is there another way to approach this argument?

Jacob Needleman
A: In the present debates both sides tend to treat God as a purely external entity accessible only by faith—faith defined as belief unsupported by evidence or logic. My book presents the idea of God as representing a conscious force within the human psyche which is accessible through careful inner self-examination. The process of inner self-examination brings about a knowledge that is as rigorous and supported by evidence as anything science has to offer. At the same time, this point of view redefines faith as a knowledge that is attained not only by intellectual means, but also through the rigorous development of the emotional side of the human psyche. Such emotional knowledge is unknown to the isolated intellect and has therefore been mistakenly labeled as “irrational.”.................................
I guess I am irrational? So what else is new. :)

If anyone is willing to discuss anything in the interview it could be beneficial to do so.
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Necromancer »

Well, well, the Bible says we are God's temples by our bodies so there's a short distance from us after the trial of life to rejoin God in Heaven, I guess. :D
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Nick_A »

Necromancer wrote: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:40 am Well, well, the Bible says we are God's temples by our bodies so there's a short distance from us after the trial of life to rejoin God in Heaven, I guess. :D
From the Interview
Q: You were once an atheist. Can you pinpoint a particular time or event that caused you to re-evaluate your beliefs?

A: When I started my career as a professor of philosophy I was required to teach a course in the history of Western religious thought—much against my existentialist and atheistic inclinations. In order to teach this course, I had to do a great deal of research in the writings within the Judaic and Christian traditions and I was astonished to find in those writings philosophical thought of great power and sophistication. These writings completely blew away all my opinions about what I had taken to be the irrationality or immaturity of religious ideas, opinions which were and still are fashionable in many intellectual and literary circles today.
Is the assertion that our bodies are a temple of God an example of an idea Prof. Needleman suggests that has several depths of meanings? If true, how can a seeker of truth come to experience them?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by prof »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:57 am interview-with-Jacob-Needleman
Q: What new perspective can you bring to the tired debates between atheists and believers about the existence of God? Is there another way to approach this argument?

... the rigorous development of the emotional side of the human psyche. Such emotional knowledge is unknown to the isolated intellect ....
If anyone is willing to discuss anything in the interview it could be beneficial to do so.
To claim that God merely exists is trivial. God more than exists! I agree with Spinoza's derived conclusion:

Spinoza finds that God is real. More than real.
God, he writes, is The Reality of all realities.

In his system, "God" is a term, a well-defined term. It fits in coherently with all the rest of the system. And "Reality" is also a term, that is also well-defined. It all fits together very neatly. He is a Rationalist.

The critics may argue that the work of the Rationalists has no connection with the everyday, empirical world. However, can they reasonably say that, given Descartes' rational system known as Analytic Geometry? It definitely has proven to have many relevant and useful correlations with the empirical world. Descarte was another Rationalist.
To be rational is to give reasons to support what you say. Let us not confuse non-rational with irrational.

Furthermore, what Needleman refers to as 'emotional knowledge' is what today we would speak of as: empathy and emotional intelligence. That is what Husserl was alluding to as Intentionality. And what Robert S. Hartman called Intrinsic valuation capacity. It includes love. :!: :D

What say you?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Nick_A »

I agree prof.
Spinoza finds that God is real. More than real.
God, he writes, is The Reality of all realities.
As I understand it, God doesn’t exist –rather God IS. Existence is a process while isness is a state of being. From this perspective the process of existence takes place within God – within NOW. The reality of all realities is the domain within which the process of existence takes place.
“It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures.”―Simone Weil
Simone had this way of vivifying the most difficult concepts with elegant simplicity making them come alive for the reader. This is a sign of real understanding as opposed to the usual BS. The possible is a function of the process of existence. God’s isness isn’t possible. It IS.

The question concerns me since I know that without the eventual unity of science and the essence of religion our species is doomed. I also know that it is fashionable to believe science will disprove God but as I see it, science will eventually verify the necessity for God. This has created a situation I call secular intolerance which has the effect of spirit killing in the young. So for me there are at least three ways to discuss the question of what is God. The first is intellectual by providing a universal skeleton within which the process of existence takes place within NOW that can be defended with logic. The second is what the effect of this reality on our emotional life which cannot be explained by science or by accident. Does this indicate the potential for objective human meaning and purpose the Man animal has no interest in but is the norm for evolved Man? The third question is why bother concerning ourselves with the question? In relation to the question of why we should bother and how we should confront the problem of secular intolerance, do you agree with what Jacob Needleman said in the interview? If he is right, how do we keep eros alive in modern society where the attractions of technology enchant and hold human attention in psychological slavery?
Q: How does our present confusion about the concept of God reflect a widespread psychological or spiritual starvation? How would you guide someone who is confused about the concept of God?

A: Every human being is born with an intrinsic yearning to understand, to contact and, eventually, to serve something higher in ourselves and in the universe. Plato calls this yearning eros. It defines us as human beings—even more than our biological nature, our social conditioning or our ordinary reasoning capacity. Our modern world-view tragically misperceives and wrongly defines what it is to be human. We are conditioned by our society to believe happiness comes from pleasure, or from getting things or power over people or money or fame or even health and survival. None of these sometimes very good things can bring ultimate meaning to our lives. We are born to be deeply conscious, inwardly free and deeply capable of love. The longing for these things is the definition of what it means to be human. At the present moment in our culture this yearning for meaning and consciousness, this yearning to give and serve something higher than ourselves, is breaking through the hard crust of our widespread cultural materialism and pseudo-scientific underestimation of what a human being is meant to be together with an equally tragic overestimation of what we human beings are capable of in our present everyday state of being. The intensity of the present confusion about the nature and existence of God is a symptom of this yearning within the whole of our modern culture.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:06 am
Simone had this way of vivifying the most difficult concepts with elegant simplicity making them come alive for the reader. This is a sign of real understanding as opposed to the usual BS.
No it isn't a sign of real understanding, it's just a bland, meaningless utterance. That woman really has you mesmerised, Nick.
This has created a situation I call secular intolerance which has the effect of spirit killing in the young.
That's an interesting idea, you should start a thread about it.
So for me there are at least three ways to discuss the question of what is God.
For me, there is a fourth way: not discussing it at all.
The first is intellectual by providing a universal skeleton within which the process of existence takes place within NOW that can be defended with logic.
If you're going to discuss God I suggest you dispense with the logic right from the outset.
The second is what the effect of this reality on our emotional life which cannot be explained by science or by accident.
It's not so much that it can't be explained by science, it's more that you don't want it to be explained by science.
Does this indicate the potential for objective human meaning and purpose
No, Nick, I'm afraid it doesn't.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal
For me, there is a fourth way: not discussing it at all.
So why discuss it? For example I don't care about fashion. If you begin a thread on men's fashion and argue about shirts and pants I wouldn't condemn it. If you want to argue stripes over dots it is OK with me. But even though you have no interest in the god question you feel compelled to condemn it. What makes you such a proponent of secular intolerance and so willing to condemn what you are closed to?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by attofishpi »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:29 amIf you're going to discuss God I suggest you dispense with the logic right from the outset.
Really? Since I know God exists, how would you like to go 1 to 1 in debate with me and see who has a better grasp of logic?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Harbal »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:38 pm Really? Since I know God exists, how would you like to go 1 to 1 in debate with me and see who has a better grasp of logic?
Okay, Fishy, you start and I"ll join in if I can be bothered.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A definition of Gd, and some implications that follow

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:27 pm So why discuss it? For example I don't care about fashion. If you begin a thread on men's fashion and argue about shirts and pants I wouldn't condemn it. If you want to argue stripes over dots it is OK with me. But even though you have no interest in the god question you feel compelled to condemn it. What makes you such a proponent of secular intolerance and so willing to condemn what you are closed to?
In the context of philosophy it seems to me that if you believe there is a god it cannot help but be a fundamental influence on your views. How can someone like this have a meaningful discussion with someone lacking this influence. God people should talk among themselves and leave the rest of us to do the same.
Post Reply