Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Does that rule out this god having a desire to be worshiped? And a desire for its creations to follow its laws? Seems like if you rule out things like desires, plans, feeling and intentions since those are only things which beings with brains and bodies have you're not left with much of a god.Again I see you're rejecting a specific conception of God, namely that he has desires. Thomas Aquinas made a good case that God doesn't have desires (divine impassability), and biologically it makes sense: you need a brain and body to have desires.
It also gets back to the "you're not considering a god which no one actually believes in" point. Ask a random Christian their take on divine impassability or whatever and you'll get blank stares - that sort of stuff is simply not what believers actually believe in.There's no winning, here. If you reject God in an abstract way, you haven't provided enough specifics. If you reject a specific God, you haven't rejected God in the abstract. The "gotcha" is always forthcoming.
Surely you understand why I'm making this argument, don't you? Your first sentence in your OP was...
"For the sake of this poll, God refers to a personal, interventionist God, and not an Eastern, pantheistic, God-is-the-universe conception. "
Are you saying now that I should drop this point? After all, a personal god must choose to be personal....an interventionist god must choose to intervene. Unless you want to argue that god does these things randomly without motive (without desire)...then I'm left with a god who is neither of those things.
Well, the "personal" distinction was to contrast it with "non-personal" conceptions, personal meaning relatable. I think there are difficulties with using this term literally, but that's another discussion.
It seems like you're saying that unless a person has a desire to do something, his actions are random, and that motivation is equivalent to desire?
I'm inclined to think that it is our idea of ourselves that actually has relationships with our ideas of othersEven though I think that we actually have relationships with our ideas of others, not with them...
Well it's about to become a part of this discussion lol. I don't see a way to proceed without knowing what you meant by "personal".
Yeah, at their core...motivations are based in desires of some sort. Can you provide an example of something god does that you think isn't based in desire?
But we have motivations or desires to do math problems, otherwise we wouldn't do them; that's the point.... I don't think we have motivation or desires when doing math problems, and I think something like this is approaching how God solves problems or goes about doing things.
But we have motivations or desires to do math problems, otherwise we wouldn't do them; that's the point.
Eh, well, I'd say everything, seeing how desire reflects biology, and God doesn't have biology. I think motivations involve desires for human beings, and that lacking motivation makes it extremely hard but not impossible to do things.
Actually, it's precisely the things that we're not motivated to do that we get the most credit for. The whole deal with God not having motivations or desires is that he acts purely according to reason or what is conceived as the best good.
I don't think we have motivation or desires when doing math problems, and I think something like this is approaching how God solves problems or goes about doing things.
Not exactly the same; but a desire is 'a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen', so a desire can be, and often is, a motive; e.g. the motive for working hard is the desire for wealth & success.Okay, I looked into it a little closer. To have a motive means to have a reason for doing something, therefore this isn't necessarily the same as a desire.
Not exactly the same; but a desire is 'a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen', so a desire can be, and often is, a motive; e.g. the motive for working hard is the desire for wealth & success.
I don't think that a lack of biology avoids the problem at all. Let's use the creation of the universe as an example...you're saying god created the universe without wanting to do so? Why do it then? The only motivations I can come up with are rooted in desire or instinct...and instinct would imply that it's not a choice. It's the idea of choice that implies a desire or want...biology or not.
Well why? Why does he choose to act upon the "best good"? Does he have no ability to do otherwise? If we reduce him to some mindless automaton this line of reasoning might work....but we're back to a very impersonal god.
Good one!I'm inclined to think that it is our idea of ourselves that actually has relationships with our ideas of others
"Want" is such an ambiguous term, though. It can refer to the desire to do something, or to the fact that you will something.
And again, I think we often do things against our motivation, which might itself create motivation. I see this a lot with clinically depressed folks, and one of the treatments is to stop waiting for motivation or desire, and instead act "as if" you weren't depressed, the action itself creating a chain reaction of dopamine releases that creates motivation and makes a person less depressed.
So, IMV, God created the universe without a want in terms of a desire, but colloquially "wanted" to create the universe because he willed it into existence.
I don't think this makes him a mindless automaton, seeing how he's fully conscious of all his decisions.
Guh??? (That's the caveman version of "huh"...hopefully you read it in an appropriate caveman voice)
Did you leave out a word or two in that sentence? Or did you actually mean "will something"? What is "will something"? Is that something that you do? Something you think?
I'm not sure what you're using as an example here. It would seem rather obvious that the desire to not be depressed is the motivation for not acting depressed...in this case. Were you thinking of something else?
"Will" is meant as a verb. To will is to do. Thinking can also be controlled by will.
Far from it. Depression is an illness with serious frontal lobe downregulation, which means the person has little motivation for pretty much anything. Depressives seem more inclined to wait for motivation to push them along (which usually perpetuates depression), rather than act against the grain of their motivations (or lack thereof). So I used this as an example for how we sometimes need to push against our motivation (or act when motivation isn't present) in order to reach a palatable outcome.
I can't say I'm familiar with that definition...and after checking with Merriam Webster, it doesn't seem to be common enough to be in there as a verb.
Could you elaborate then? What would be the difference between saying "god willed the universe." and "god created the universe."?
I don't see how this changes my point. You're saying that your depressed patients act to end their depression...but they don't want to act to end their depression?
Yeah, dictionaries sometimes don't capture complicated philosophical positions (which I'm doing a poor job of elucidating). To say that God willed the universe means, basically, that he created it. To will is to act, to do something freely.
Yes. Your view seems to be that motivation in the sense of desire is needed for action to be possible. I'm saying that with many people, depressed or not, it's required to act against the grain of motivation (or when it's lacking entirely) in order to do the best thing.
Then why bring it up? If it basically means that he created the universe...why not just say he created the universe?
It doesn't change the question of why he created the universe. Does he not have a reason? Because again, if we're continuing with this concept of a god who does things without reasons why...then we're back again to a very impersonal/non-interventionist god.
Why would they try to escape their depression then if they don't want to?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?