Constructing a God Type Table

[seeds]

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.

Groovy rhetoric that sounds as if it could be right - but is untrue in every sense. So #7 is rejected on the basis of complete irrelevance along with obviously patently false equivalence, with a measure of dishonest misrepresentation of others' positions added.

If people are taking about "God" we need to know which "God" we are speaking about. This is about achieving clarity, not trying to muddy the waters further with political games.

Just for the sake of laying out the rationale behind my suggestion...

You have created a thread that invites us to step inside of an arena of abstractions that have to do with what humans are willing to accept (willing to believe in/have faith in) as being responsible for the creation of the universe.

Now I am not insinuating that materialists literally worship a God called “Serendipity”...

(at least not in any overt and declarative fashion)

...but they certainly do have faith in the fact that it was somehow responsible for transforming the chaos of an alleged Big Bang into a context of order that defies comprehension.

So how, pray tell, is the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “chance” as being the guiding force in the manifestation of the universe any different than the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of the “ground of being,” for example, being its guiding force?

Now of course it’s YOUR thread and it’s YOUR list, and you are free to exclude whatever you so desire. However, you might want to park your biases outside the door of the thread and try to be a little more open minded on these issues...

...(along with being a little less rude and judgmental with respect to flinging out accusations regarding the playing of “political games”).
_______

[Greta]

I copped the rudeness and judgementalism from theists on this forum first. Sorry if you are feeling the residual effects of those encounters.

I'm just trying to clarify an obvious ambiguity. A similar list could be made for consciousness.

Whatever, your post is irrelevant. How does your post help clarify what a person means when they say "God"? Instead you are trying to create false equivalency with the non-religious, playing a *political game* of "You do it too!". You are loathe to accept that not everyone has a religious kind of mind or outlook.

Further, if I am to believe you when you say you are a believer in God, then you should believe others when they say they have no god. Don't you think it is "disrespectful" tell tell atheists and agnostics that they really worship x or y? Would you consider it disrespectful for people to suggest that you are not a real believer in God, just pretending for the sake of image?

A suggestion: Probably best not to sweat about disrespect on forums

[seeds]

A suggestion: Probably best not to sweat about disrespect on forums

Do you mean the same way that you never sweat about the disrespect you receive from Nick_A?
_______

[Greta]

A suggestion: Probably best not to sweat about disrespect on forums

Do you mean the same way that you never sweat about the disrespect you receive from Nick_A?

Who?

It's not the disrespect but the misinformation that hurts most.

[uwot]

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.

Who are these materialists, seeds?

[uwot]

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"

Contributions?

I suppose it could apply to any of the above, but 'saviour' in some form or other is usually a feature.

[attofishpi]

As we all know, God is posited to be all manner of things by different people - anywhere from a Santa-esque character that rewards the good and punishes the naughty, to "everything", to being simply a myth.

It seems to me that, for clarity's and brevity's sake, philosophers need to construct a table listing and consistently labelling all the different versions of The Monotheistic Deity. Thus, with this system one might easily clear up and a misunderstand like so: "No no no, I'm referring to God #37, not Gods # 1, 2 or 6". See how easy and clear it would be if we could all speak the same language?

After all, pantheists will rightfully feel insulted if they are spoken to as if they were young Earth creationists, and no doubt vice versa.

I only know a small number of "kinds of God":

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"

Contributions?

So far, Panentheism is the glove that fits.

[Dontaskme]

Who?

It's not the disrespect but the misinformation that hurts most.

Why would misinformation hurt?

If it's misinformation to you, then it's because you already know the right information according to your belief. You cannot deny or negate the belief structure that is inherent within the consciousness that is experienced as the mind body mechanism. There simply is no one reading information without a belief in that information.

You don't have to believe what you are hearing or seeing in the form of information...but a belief is needed if information is to be known as being correct or false ...you'd either have to believe it is false or believe it is correct...otherwise it's just information...it's just a programme running in the biological computer that is the brain.

The information itself is neither false or correct, it's how it is perceived, interpeted by the reader, the reader aka conscious awareness is the same in every body mind mechanism...although the perception, or interpretion of what is being read/seen can differ immensley...and that's where belief comes in. So if you already know the difference between misinformation and it's opposite, what feels right for you, why be hurt ?

This is where the master comes in, the one who knows what is right because it knows what is wrong. Why get yanked back into the confused mind of misinformation if you already know how to spot misinformation as being misinformed...why would that effect you in a hurtful way?


Information is just what it is, and there is no information that is right or wrong, true or false, without the belief there is.

Information is conceptual .. all words are conceptual,all concepts are language which is knowledge, and there is nothing outside of that knowledge except the knower of that knowledge. If you already are the knower, then be the knower you know, and stop believing in misinformation that is not yours...then you'll stop hurting.



.

[seeds]

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.

Who are these materialists, seeds?

Greta is going to accuse me of muddying up her thread even further, but seeing how you asked, they are anyone who blindly takes for granted the implausible terms I laid out in one of our prior discussions, uwot, here – viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23943&start=45#p357784
_______

[uwot]

...[materialists] are anyone who blindly takes for granted the implausible terms I laid out in one of our prior discussions, uwot, here – viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23943&start=45#p357784

Fair enough, but to me that just demonstrates the trouble with belief. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with believing anything that pleases you, whether that is religion or the sort of materialism you describe-both are equally metaphysical. Belief only becomes a problem on a personal level when someone holds a belief so strongly that they are unwilling, or unable to accept any evidence that challenges that belief; what yer trick-cyclists call cognitive dissonance. As this forum amply shows, this can make some people who are demonstrably talking out their arse very grumpy.

[Greta]

Who?

It's not the disrespect but the misinformation that hurts most.

Why would misinformation hurt?

Because people have worked with great dedication and passion, making great sacrifices, even with their lives at times, to further human knowledge.

Then some bigmouth fool in power or online imply dismisses all that work and makes up their own version. When called out on their falsehoods they cry foul about dictatorial thought control from The Establishment.

You might not find this relatable because you do not love or value knowledge, seeing it as an impediment to what you see as the truth or non truth or whatever non existent nothingness you seem to posit reality to be (or not be).

[Eodnhoj7]

As we all know, God is posited to be all manner of things by different people - anywhere from a Santa-esque character that rewards the good and punishes the naughty, to "everything", to being simply a myth.

It seems to me that, for clarity's and brevity's sake, philosophers need to construct a table listing and consistently labelling all the different versions of The Monotheistic Deity. Thus, with this system one might easily clear up and a misunderstand like so: "No no no, I'm referring to God #37, not Gods # 1, 2 or 6". See how easy and clear it would be if we could all speak the same language?

After all, pantheists will rightfully feel insulted if they are spoken to as if they were young Earth creationists, and no doubt vice versa.

I only know a small number of "kinds of God":

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"

Contributions?

Everything and Nothing.

[Greta]

If I ask whether "everything and nothing" should be one category or two, are you going to tell me that everything is nothing and/or vice versa?

[Dontaskme]

Who?

It's not the disrespect but the misinformation that hurts most.

Why would misinformation hurt?

Because people have worked with great dedication and passion, making great sacrifices, even with their lives at times, to further human knowledge.

Then some bigmouth fool in power or online imply dismisses all that work and makes up their own version. When called out on their falsehoods they cry foul about dictatorial thought control from The Establishment.

You might not find this relatable because you do not love or value knowledge, seeing it as an impediment to what you see as the truth or non truth or whatever non existent nothingness you seem to posit reality to be (or not be).

Wisdom is knowing you only have your own version of truth to rely on.

To your own self be true, only you can trust you..right?

I have the greatest respect for myself, and hold myself in the highest esteem, I trust in that one only to bring me to wisdom. Only I can take myself through the gates of self understanding into self realisation. I understand that only I know what's best for me, and have the wisdom to not take on ideas that are not best for me. Knowing this I know there is no such thing as misinformation, all information is your teacher.

There is no scarifice in knowing your own self. If one feels like they are sacrificing something, then this is called the misery self...That's like saying ..I did this for you, why can't you just be grateful?'' ..it's pointless because we're all on our own unique journeys of self discovery here.

When you know yourself, then you will know others...only you can know what is true or false, you cannot preempt it in others...and that is what you appear to do...instead of allowing others their own space to work it out for themselves.

No one has ever been alive before...we live on the backs of other knowers, no one has an authentic piece of knowledge in them...because knowledge is sourced in not-knowing.

Life is the play of consciousness...the unkowable known.

I personally happen to have a great respect for this ''unkowable knowing'' simply because I personally couldn't have made that possible.

.

Did you forget this perfect piece of knowledge that is always available to you, or wasn't you listening, or are you not interested in learning from others ..aka yourself?

The human body wakes up the moment it is meant to wake up in the morning and no cause can be identified for the body waking up. Similarly, the mind awakens to enlightenment the moment the mind is meant to awaken to enlightenment, which happens when understanding evolves in the mind that everyone and everything is interconnected as one, though they appear dissimilar and diverse.

The individual cannot experience enlightenment for he ceases to experience individuality when the mind awakens to enlightenment.
The clue to the process of awakening is the mind itself. The mind has evolved in man, and this indicates that the mind is present in matter, vegetation and the animal kingdom. If the mind were NOT present in matter, vegetation and the animal kingdom, the mind would not be present in humans either, because life is an evolutionary process and the old, which is present in everything, evolves as the new, and the new is not separate from the old.


.

[Dontaskme]

If I ask whether "everything and nothing" should be one category or two, are you going to tell me that everything is nothing and/or vice versa?

One is not a category. Only two is a category, albeit an illusory category because to categorise is to split one into two...but here there is only one (whole) which cannot be split, one is simply indivisable. Any split is simply an illusory appearance of that one.

______

I only know a small number of "kinds of God":

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being

All the same one dreaming difference where there is none.

There is no knower, (not-knowing) there is only the known...not-knowing known.

That which appears to construct, never constructs.

That which appears to be constructing, was never constructed.

There/here is the uncreated unending NOW.

Any knowledge about what is uncreated and unending..is a fictional story within it.

.

The story is the play of Consciousness.. no one wrote the story, no one owns the story, the story has no author or copyright.
But only consciousness reads it. Every single I ...is consciousness.