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.
A person can be the grounding of moral behavior. Matter doesn't have any behavior in the strict sense. Mindless matter can't love but a person can. I guess I'm confused about the question, it sounds like 'which would you rather have a friend or a rock?' And I know you're not asking that. So do you mean something like 'why is the Christian God better than the Deistic god?'.Silmarien, when I say personal god, I mean a god of characteristics, behavior, a being who executes plans (although I define a personal god in this way I do not believe such a god exists).
For me, a non personal God is one who does not
is distinct from matter!
When I say god and matter are the same thing I mean that God and the cosmos are the same, for me it makes more sense to say that the "nature of reality is infinitely creative".
In fact I do not think the reality of a personal God can say much!
You still need to explain what you mean by a God who is not distinct from matter.Silmarien, when I say personal god, I mean a god of characteristics, behavior, a being who executes plans (although I define a personal god in this way I do not believe such a god exists).
For me, a non personal God is one who does not
is distinct from matter!
When I say god and matter are the same thing I mean that God and the cosmos are the same, for me it makes more sense to say that the "nature of reality is infinitely creative".
In fact I do not think the reality of a personal God can say much!
It is not secret, that FSM is fiction: it has the author among atheists. So, it is not real. Welcome to Reality.….but that to me is the same as saying that the flying spaghetti monster is personal because the book or gospel of the flying spaghetti monster says this…...
I concur with those who ask for clarification of terms, first and foremost. Especially the value determination of something being 'better', as @Silmarien mentioned.
To investigate the question though, we are assuming a bit here, aren't we? You are assuming that the Material exists, or could exist, in some extra-personal sense. Do we not though, conceive of everything through our person? That we 'see' something only occurs when consciously aware thereof. While hypothetically the eye picks up light from various objects, we only see what our consciousness, our personhood, lights upon. From the notion that there is something beyond what we are consciously aware of, we assume that we are in fact observing something with a reality external to our observation thereof - but is this necessarily valid? It is how much anthropic principle you would apply.
So we humans can only know of something, or affirm it, if we or intersubjectively by abstraction, could become aware of it. So only by awareness by someone, did we actually bring something into actuality. The concept of a 'continent' didn't exist until articulated, and the Americas did not exist to Europeans until perceived, seen, and thought of.
So you are assuming something never placed in relation to a conscious awareness could exist. On what do you base this claim? Deductive reasoning from human experience certainly doesn't support this, as something in a sense only exists once perceived.
Or do you assume things become existent once perceived, but did not exist prior to it? Or are we dealing with potentialities? That Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead until the box is opened?
For us to blithely assume that our observable world reflects something that exists extra-personally to ourselves, requires many metaphysical assumptioms. Based on human experience though, the unobserved is in some sense also the non-existent.
God as the Ground of Being, I AM that I AM, that which fundamentally exists, requires that it be observed perhaps. A personal God as in a Being, makes far more sense from the grounds of human perception and experience, than essentially claiming non-existence becomes existent, as lesser creatures become aware. This is fundamentally related to what @Dirk1540 was saying.
CS Lewis is a good source here. In Pilgrim's Regress, John falls in with a bunch of Idealists. The principle of a holistic everything as God, however belies how a portion thereof stands in relation to the whole. An 'I' as part and parcell of a pantheistic entity, is still in some sense separate, and thus still implies an extraneous Him. It is a matter of perspective, perhaps.
If we construct what we deem 'Reality' by conscious thought, that Reality, by nature, remains dependant on Consciousness. As we cannot affirm our experience beyond our conscious experience, we are stuck with conceiving everything necessarily from an aspect of Mind. It is not coincidence that Neoplatonism, Buddhism, Confucianism, right down to modern Quantum Physics and Relativity Theory, require a fairly stubborn idea of Consciousness being required to bring Actuality and determinability. This is why Existence itself, even in Pantheistic systems, becomes linked to aspects of a Mind - in essence therefore hard to distinguish from an ineffable Person.
I think maybe it would be better to call it cosmic energy instead of non-personal God, I call it an impersonal god because he does not answer prayers, does not help us in difficult times), I call the cosmos of God because it is something fantastic, incredible, astonishing, and likely to have some "consciousness."I have seen people struggle to give a precise definition of "God", but I always felt that "personal" (as in "is a person") was a fixed component of such a definition.
What would a "non-personal God" be... and why would one use the term "God" to label it?
Besides being a person full of doubts, I am also contradictory.I guess he got a little confused with the different usages of the term "personal". You should make it clear if you mean it in the "is a person" or "is there for you personally" way.
What I call a cosmic force or an energy scattered throughout the universe and that is not beyond the universe is what I call "god", I do not believe that god is an anthropomorphic and personal being (that speaks, judges, arbitrates, saves, punishes and is considered the creator of everything being that this does not happen) why I say that this type, therefore I affirm that this non personal God, that this One is the Whole and the Whole is the One therefore and that the universe is a species of "consciousness," the only difference from this with atheism is that I call the universe and the nature of an god ("impersonal god");You still need to explain what you mean by a God who is not distinct from matter.
Are you attributing divine properties to matter itself? Does matter actually have a will of its own? Do you view the universe as necessarily existing and in some sense aware?
Pantheism is an interesting option, but simply saying that the universe is divine doesn't mean anything. You will need to explain how your position is distinct from atheism, otherwise we're not dealing with a non-personal conception of the divine at all. We're dealing with an atheistic physical reality by another name.
Thanks for the reply Jayem, you expressed this idea much better than I could express it, in fact I also do not think that simply "my impersonal god" is better than the personal god of theism in general, but at least in my This impersonal god, cosmic energy or cosmic consciousness makes more sense than a god who is said to answer prayers, to work miracles, to relate to an individual, to use men to write many contradictory ideas in sacred books, and to threaten those who do not believe or think differently with a place of eternal torture.Interesting thread. Speaking as a non-theist, the reasons given for belief in a personal god, who cares about us, boil down to 2 cognitive phenomena:
1) Incredulity that a complex cosmos containing intelligent life could have arisen by purely natural processes.
2) A caring supreme being, whom we would recognize as morally good is more psychologically comfortable than a detached, uninvolved diety.
To me, neither of these assumptions make for compelling arguments. #1 is the argument from ignorance. #2 is wishful thinking. They both reflect how we see the world. They say much more about how the human brain works, than about the characteristics of any cosmic creative and sustaining entity or entities. If any such entities actally exist.
I believe that there is a complex flavor/recipe to the type of belief that God wants from us, a recipe of belief that only has intellectual satisfaction as one of its ingredients...but if you increase the ratio of intellectual proofs that exist in the world it would drown out other factors/tastes to this recipe of ‘Belief’ (that God craves most).Dirk, then you think that this personal source/God has all the attributes we have and still has more attributes of knowledge than we do, so why did not he use a more effective and persuasive way of convincing us of his existence and his "good intentions"?
I'll be away for the next couple of weeks so won't be responding for a while (and if I do, someone please yell at me)
Hey!! Get Lost!!!!!You still need to explain what you mean by a God who is not distinct from matter.
Are you attributing divine properties to matter itself? Does matter actually have a will of its own? Do you view the universe as necessarily existing and in some sense aware?
Pantheism is an interesting option, but simply saying that the universe is divine doesn't mean anything. You will need to explain how your position is distinct from atheism, otherwise we're not dealing with a non-personal conception of the divine at all. We're dealing with an atheistic physical reality by another name.
Thank you for responding HTacianas, so you think God is an impersonal force just because there are ministering angels? I think by adhering to this thought you automatically go against what traditional Christianity teaches, I am not a Christian, but if a Christian denies the concept of a personal god, he automatically denies that Jesus was the incarnate and personal manifestation of God, also denies that the Holy Spirit intercedes for the faithful and also denies that idea of Genesis that men are made of the image and likeness of that same god.
Hello Sanoy, thnks for reply. Mind is also matter, love and other emotions are chemical reactions of the brain. In fact with this question I do not want to prove that the "impersonal god" is better than a personal god even though I have more preferences for the idea of believing that the universe is all there is and that the idea of a personal and transcendent god is no better or superior than a "pantheistic god" (that is the Cosmos), I say this because some theists have told me that their particular "God" is above others or that there is no other true deity outside theirs.A person can be the grounding of moral behavior. Matter doesn't have any behavior in the strict sense. Mindless matter can't love but a person can. I guess I'm confused about the question, it sounds like 'which would you rather have a friend or a rock?' And I know you're not asking that. So do you mean something like 'why is the Christian God better than the Deistic god?'.
In fact I agree with his definition of personal god, when I say a personal god I define it as follows: a being who relates to his creatures, who is compassionate, loving, considerate, has an intentions for his creation, or possesses emotions atropomorphic), I did not say that that god was exclusive to a person only.I think we need to first agree to a definition of "personal god". It seems we define it in different ways.
To me "personal god" means that God Himself fellows me around and involves Himself in my daily life. While God is certainly involved in my life, He is not my personal god. I view my relationship with God to be the relationship between a subject and a king, God being that king while I am His subject.
I do not doubt the working of the Holy Spirit in any person's life, and I do not doubt the atoning work of Christ that has allowed me, by the grace of God, to enter into that kingdom.
So I ask how the idea of a personal God is better than the idea of the cosmic energy (that I call non-personal God).
In fact with this question I do not want to prove that the "impersonal god" is better than a personal god even though I have more preferences for the idea of believing that the universe is all there is and that the idea of a personal and transcendent god is no better or superior than a "pantheistic god" (that is the Cosmos)...
I actually find the idea of a personal God difficult and intimidating despite leaning towards theism, so I'm not really sure how we're qualifying "better" and "worse" here.
I concur with those who ask for clarification of terms, first and foremost. Especially the value determination of something being 'better', as @Silmarien mentioned.
In fact I agree with his definition of personal god, when I say a personal god I define it as follows: a being who relates to his creatures, who is compassionate, loving, considerate, has an intentions for his creation, or possesses emotions atropomorphic), I did not say that that god was exclusive to a person only.
Yes, when I say a personal God I mean a god with personality and characteristics!
Silmarien, when I say personal god, I mean a god of characteristics, behavior, a being who executes plans (although I define a personal god in this way I do not believe such a god exists).
In fact I agree with his definition of personal god, when I say a personal god I define it as follows: a being who relates to his creatures, who is compassionate, loving, considerate, has an intentions for his creation, or possesses emotions atropomorphic), I did not say that that god was exclusive to a person only.
Actually I do not want to convey the idea that a vision is "better", I'm sorry if my OP does understand this idea, but that's a sincere question, because I've already been told that theism is higher than thoughts non-theists, that is why I asked the question in this tone, but I do not want to show superiodinity of a particular vision, but I see that many Christians, I do not say those of that forum (I can not say this because I am new here) but the Christians I've talked to have always said that their visions and beliefs were the only true and authentic beliefs (something I find presumptuous) and that nonbelievers or people of other philosophical beliefs and systems are anathema, heathen, and so on.I was hoping that the better/worse question would work itself out naturally, but I don't think it has. What do you mean by "better" and "worse"? You seem to include the idea of superiority, but that isn't altogether helpful in resolving the value question.
Actually I do not want to convey the idea that a vision is "better", I'm sorry if my OP does understand this idea, but that's a sincere question, because I've already been told that theism is higher than thoughts non-theists, that is why I asked the question in this tone, but I do not want to show superiodinity of a particular vision, but I see that many Christians, I do not say those of that forum (I can not say this because I am new here) but the Christians I've talked to have always said that their visions and beliefs were the only true and authentic beliefs (something I find presumptuous) and that nonbelievers or people of other philosophical beliefs and systems are anathema, heathen, and so on.
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?