I don't know what I am.

[Edward the Theist]

I think I am a theist. I believe that God exists, but I believe the only thing that exists--really--is God. Paradoxically, that leads to a kind of atheism. Try imagining it and you'll see what I mean.

After all, if you don't believe in any of the gods ever invented by man, and you disregard every religion as complete nonsense, then what are you left with? But that's where I am.

I call myself a humanist, and I live out that philosophy in my life, but I call myself a theist, and most humanists are atheists. I don't believe I will survive after death, but I believe that God never ceases, and He's the only thing that really exists anyway. And so I don't find hope in resurrection, but then I don't find despair in not existing anymore.

There is no religion to describe what I am. I am like an atheist who believes in God. And now I know that God exists, because only God has a sense of humor like that. We puzzle over paradox while He laughs at it.

 

[elopez]

Atheism is the rejection of the belief of a God or gods. Theism is the belief in a God. Saying you are a theist, then going on to say that leads to atheism, isn't really paradoxical, since a paradox usually denotes that there is some solution to the dilemma or that there is a possible truth of the two seeming paradoxical statements. In this case, however, there seems to be no resolution between claiming one is a theist and an atheist, and there seems to be no possible truth that could come from claiming such. That is more contradictory than anything, which isn't really some new found philosophical outlook, but only logically inconsistent.

In other words, by definition an atheist cannot believe in God. If he does, then he is not an atheist, since of course we cannot change the definition of words at our own subjective whim. So, either you accept that a God exists and go from there, or you reject the idea completely.

 

[Edward the Theist]

Atheism is the rejection of the belief of a God or gods. Theism is the belief in a God. Saying you are a theist, then going on to say that leads to atheism, isn't really paradoxical, since a paradox usually denotes that there is some solution to the dilemma or that there is a possible truth of the two seeming paradoxical statements. In this case, however, there seems to be no resolution between claiming one is a theist and an atheist, and there seems to be no possible truth that could come from claiming such. That is more contradictory than anything, which isn't really some new found philosophical outlook, but only logically inconsistent.

In other words, by definition an atheist cannot believe in God. If he does, then he is not an atheist, since of course we cannot change the definition of words at our own subjective whim. So, either you accept that a God exists and go from there, or you reject the idea completely.

I understand what you are saying, and on one level I completely agree, but here's the thing: I believe the only real thing is God. He is all that ever was; He is all that is; there is nothing in existence except God. And God doesn't have a god.

In truth, I don't even have to call this fundamental being, "God." I could call it anything I wanted to; it wouldn't make any difference. If in fact, it is the only thing that truly exists (an acosmic monism), then I might as well call it a coffee cup as call it God.

If I called it the universe and said the universe has no god, then I would be making an atheistic statement.

It's not really a contradiction. It's more of a dilemma or paradox.

 

[elopez]

I understand what you are saying, and on one level I completely agree, but here's the thing: I believe the only real thing is God. He is all that ever was; He is all that is; there is nothing in existence except God. And God doesn't have a god.

What exactly do you agree with that I'm saying? If you believe in God, even being it the thought that only God is existent, then you are a theist.

In truth, I don't even have to call this fundamental being, "God." I could call it anything I wanted to; it wouldn't make any difference. If in fact, it is the only thing that truly exists (an acosmic monism), then I might as well call it a coffee cup as call it God.

You can call it what you want, but how much sense would it make? A cup of coffee is a cup of coffee; it is not a sentient being that is intelligent as God would be. God is God, and not a cup of coffee as the two objects are different things in themselves. This is the Law of Identity of which cannot be violated.

If I called it the universe and said the universe has no god, then I would be making an atheistic statement.

It's not really a contradiction. It's more of a dilemma or paradox.

You have already said there is a God, so to say the universe has no God would of course be atheistic, but it would also be contradicting. As I said, this is not a paradox of any sort for two reasons. First, a paradox has a solution, in this case it would be how one could consistently claim there is a God while at the same time claiming there is no God. In relation to that I ask, what is the solution? Secondly, the paradox itself implies a sort of truth to the matter of both seemingly opposing claims, and to that I ask what truth is there in claiming there is a God and there is not a God?

It's a contradiction, and a contradiction suggests a type of falsity.

 

[Johnnz]

You must grapple with the reality of who Jesus was, and is. Religion is a set of codified beliefs. Jesus is very different. Understanding of God comes from relationship with Him.

John
NZ

 

[paul1149]

here's the thing: I believe the only real thing is God. He is all that ever was; He is all that is; there is nothing in existence except God.

The problem with this is that it doesn't account for the reality of sin. If all is God, then God is also sin. You have just made a judgment on the character of God.

The Bible teaches differently - that God created, and that Creation fell. It is rebellion against God that caused the sin in the world, and sin caused separation. Thus God and Creation are not intrinsically the same.

Creation still carries the signs of God's glory, seen in nature and man's make up, despite being fallen. And God did not abandon us, but promises to work in all things for the good of those who love Him. He has made provision for our ultimate full reconciliation, but for that to happen the sin problem had to be dealt with.

Man's conscience bears witness to our sinfulness. There is no healthy way to escape this. We are not God, and neither is Creation.

 

[Edward the Theist]

It's a contradiction, and a contradiction suggests a type of falsity.

Okay, it's a contradiction. Nevertheless, I remain an atheist and theist at the same time. Because consider this, if God is all that exists, then I am God, as you are, as everything is. I can't make the statement, then, that there is a God. God has no god. If God is all there is, then God has to be an atheist.

A god is a Divine, supreme being. What I am describing is not a God. It is simply what is, and there is nothing else. So there is no God.

And understand, this wouldn't be confusing at all, if I didn't call "That of which there is no other" God. If I called it Zen, or the universe, then you'd immediately say I was an atheist.

And yet, I am talking about the Creator of the Universe. I am talking about an intelligent supernatural entity.

 

[Edward the Theist]

The problem with this is that it doesn't account for the reality of sin. If all is God, then God is also sin. You have just made a judgment on the character of God.

You're going to have to think outside the box here a bit.

The Bible teaches differently - that God created, and that Creation fell. It is rebellion against God that caused the sin in the world, and sin caused separation. Thus God and Creation are not intrinsically the same.

Even if the Christian version of God is correct, God is responsible for sin. He can shove it off on to us, and we are powerless to stop him, but nevertheless, He is the one who put the apple in the garden and hung it in front of Eve. He is the one who designed her to desire it. He is the one who let Satan crawl around in there as a talking snake. And for every sin I've done in my life, no matter what it goes back to one thing: I didn't ask to be created. I was forced into creation. I was raped into creation.

The version I've described doesn't even address the concept of sin. But you need to think about your version and ask yourself this: If God can behave like that in regards to sin and creation, can He really be trusted to keep his word?

Creation still carries the signs of God's glory, seen in nature and man's make up, despite being fallen. And God did not abandon us, but promises to work in all things for the good of those who love Him. He has made provision for our ultimate full reconciliation, but for that to happen the sin problem had to be dealt with.

Man's conscience bears witness to our sinfulness. There is no healthy way to escape this. We are not God, and neither is Creation.

I'm sorry, but the Christian version of God is a logical impossibility. And if we cannot use logic, but rather must use faith and magical thinking, then the only truth that remains is that we have no real access to the truth. If it is left to the individual spirit of man to discern the voice of God calling him to salvation through Christ, then there is no reliable way that call can ever be verified.

Of course, your immediate reaction will be to consider this an attack on your faith, but it's not. It is merely a fly in the ointment. It is the mosquito you swat and for the breifest moment wonder why God would create a bug that you are expected to kill in order to keep from being injured. Why make such a world? :o

 

[Johnnz]

"I'm sorry, but the Christian version of God is a logical impossibility. And if we cannot use logic, but rather must use faith and magical thinking, then the only truth that remains is that we have no real access to the truth. If it is left to the individual spirit of man to discern the voice of God calling him to salvation through Christ, then there is no reliable way that call can ever be verified."

A logical impossibility? Please amplify that statement.

A reasonably based faith is neither 'blind faith' nor magical thinking. Methinks the magical thinking belongs to the over-reliance on the myth of 'objective reason' that still permeates the mindset of many people.

John
NZ

 

[paul1149]

Even if the Christian version of God is correct, God is responsible for sin. He can shove it off on to us, and we are powerless to stop him, but nevertheless, He is the one who put the apple in the garden and hung it in front of Eve. He is the one who designed her to desire it. He is the one who let Satan crawl around in there as a talking snake. And for every sin I've done in my life, no matter what it goes back to one thing: I didn't ask to be created. I was forced into creation. I was raped into creation...

God is not responsible for sin. Ezek 28 makes clear that He created all things perfect, even the being who became satan. You fail to recognize the need for free will, without which we have no real personhood. When God created He was not playing a game. He created real individuals with the ability to make their own choices, and He was committed to letting their choices play out. The downside to that is that during this current age we must suffer the consequences of those choices.

God is responsible for allowing fallen Creation to continue to exist, which seems to be what your complaint is about. But He has done so because He has a plan to put away for good the evil of the current age. And He has underwritten that plan at great cost, through the blood of His dear Son.

Christian doctrine is no logical impossibility. It is you who needs to think outside your own box. You have judged God's character to be an offshoot of the fallen Creation you think He merely is. This is a profound error.

Separating God from creation frees Him to be perfectly good and pure, and to function on a much higher plane than do we. And that is exactly the way it is. It takes faith to accept that, and that faith will be able to span the pain of this life and the time it is going to take to get to the other side. But it is the only satisfying source of hope that there is. All else is, as your doctrine demonstrates, rooted in our own strength and destined to fail.

 

[Edward the Theist]

A logical impossibility? Please amplify that statement.

A reasonably based faith is neither 'blind faith' nor magical thinking. Methinks the magical thinking belongs to the over-reliance on the myth of 'objective reason' that still permeates the mindset of many people.
John
NZ

Sure, I can amplify: The Christian version of God dictates that God is separate from His creation. That is, there is God, and separate from God is His Creation, and that the two are not the same thing. But that means that a third thing has been made which is not possible. Between God and his Creation there is a line and that line is neither God nor the creation. It is independent of God, and that’s not possible. If the line is part of God, then there is no separation between the creation and God which leads to acosmic monism. Same goes if the line is part of the creation. If the line is infinitesimally small, then it’s not really a line unless we adopt a kind of magical thinking in order to imagine it.

That’s why the Christian version cannot be accurate. And if you change it to be more accurate, all of the theology of Christianity falls down like a house of cards.

God is not responsible for sin. Ezek 28 makes clear that He created all things perfect, even the being who became satan. You fail to recognize the need for free will, without which we have no real personhood. When God created He was not playing a game. He created real individuals with the ability to make their own choices, and He was committed to letting their choices play out.

Fine. And that makes him responsible for sin. The most powerful person in a situation has responsibility for that situation.

The downside to that is that during this current age we must suffer the consequences of those choices. God is responsible for allowing fallen Creation to continue to exist, which seems to be what your complaint is about. But He has done so because He has a plan to put away for good the evil of the current age. And He has underwritten that plan at great cost, through the blood of His dear Son.

To quote Bill Maher in “Religilous” “Well, what’s He waiting for?”

You do realize an all-powerful being does not have to “battle” anything. An all-powerful being does not have to send part of Himself down to die on a cross. An all-powerful being is, well, all-powerful. If your theology is correct, you may have to face the fact that God is playing games for nothing more than his amusement. As Al Pacino said in “The Devil’s Advocate,” His own cosmic gag reel.

Christian doctrine is no logical impossibility. It is you who needs to think outside your own box. You have judged God's character to be an offshoot of the fallen Creation you think He merely is. This is a profound error

Separating God from creation frees Him to be perfectly good and pure, and to function on a much higher plane than do we.

Separating God from creation is the logical impossibility.

And that is exactly the way it is. It takes faith to accept that, and that faith will be able to span the pain of this life and the time it is going to take to get to the other side. But it is the only satisfying source of hope that there is. All else is, as your doctrine demonstrates, rooted in our own strength and destined to fail.

Faith in a logical impossibility is magical thinking. And if you are right that we only have faith to get us through the pain of this life, and if that is our only satisfying source of hope, then we are without hope. We have only a delusion to hold back the madness. And if that is the case, then we better hope the atheists are right and we just blink out of existence when we die.

 

[paul1149]

Your thinking is contained within its own framework. But I don't think there is anything else I can say, so best wishes to you.

 

[elopez]

Okay, it's a contradiction. Nevertheless, I remain an atheist and theist at the same time. Because consider this, if God is all that exists, then I am God, as you are, as everything is. I can't make the statement, then, that there is a God. God has no god. If God is all there is, then God has to be an atheist.

Yes, it is a contradiction. Do you know what a contradiction is? When Aristotle put forth his work on the Law of Non - contradiction he argued for three versions which are the ontological, doxastic, and semantic version. The second is probably what we are dealing with here as it is described as "It is impossible to hold (suppose) the same thing to be and not to be." We cannot say the same thing is x and not x. Or more precisely, you can say the same thing is x and is not x, but that doesn't mean it is claimed with rationality, for it certainly is not.

So, you do not remain both an atheist and a theist at the same time. That would be like saying there is such a thing as a married bachelor. Well, there isn't such a thing. A man cannot be both married and a bachelor at the same time.

I'll consider that. According to this thought, if God is the only thing that truly exists, then there is no "I" or "you" or "everything." You can make the statement there is God because you already said that is the only existent thing.

 

[Johnnz]

"Sure, I can amplify: The Christian version of God dictates that God is separate from His creation. That is, there is God, and separate from God is His Creation, and that the two are not the same thing. But that means that a third thing has been made which is not possible. Between God and his Creation there is a line and that line is neither God nor the creation. It is independent of God, and that’s not possible. If the line is part of God, then there is no separation between the creation and God which leads to acosmic monism. Same goes if the line is part of the creation. If the line is infinitesimally small, then it’s not really a line unless we adopt a kind of magical thinking in order to imagine it."

But God is not remote from His creation,which is a deist position. God is other than but also deeply involved with His creation.

John
NZ

 

[ChristianT]

Woot new orleans! Meanwhile, why is it, Edward, that you find the Christian God laughable when your conception of God is contradictory? If anything, your definition is that of Creation, however you posit that it created itself and is sentient. I find it hard to see how a bunch of rocks, gas, and liquids - and timespace - can know it exists.

EDIT: Not to mention that which exists can not have created itself, thus it would be impossible to create or be created by itself.

 

[ChristianT]

Separating God from creation is the logical impossibility.

How so?

 

[playbluebabble]

I think I am a theist. I believe that God exists, but I believe the only thing that exists--really--is God. Paradoxically, that leads to a kind of atheism. Try imagining it and you'll see what I mean.

After all, if you don't believe in any of the gods ever invented by man, and you disregard every religion as complete nonsense, then what are you left with? But that's where I am.

I call myself a humanist, and I live out that philosophy in my life, but I call myself a theist, and most humanists are atheists. I don't believe I will survive after death, but I believe that God never ceases, and He's the only thing that really exists anyway. And so I don't find hope in resurrection, but then I don't find despair in not existing anymore.

There is no religion to describe what I am. I am like an atheist who believes in God. And now I know that God exists, because only God has a sense of humor like that. We puzzle over paradox while He laughs at it.

I would be wary of saying "I am this" or "I am that", because you may get stuck in one or the other and limit who you really are.

 

[Edward the Theist]

Yes, it is a contradiction. Do you know what a contradiction is? When Aristotle put forth his work on the Law of Non - contradiction he argued for three versions which are the ontological, doxastic, and semantic version. The second is probably what we are dealing with here as it is described as "It is impossible to hold (suppose) the same thing to be and not to be." We cannot say the same thing is x and not x. Or more precisely, you can say the same thing is x and is not x, but that doesn't mean it is claimed with rationality, for it certainly is not.

So, you do not remain both an atheist and a theist at the same time. That would be like saying there is such a thing as a married bachelor. Well, there isn't such a thing. A man cannot be both married and a bachelor at the same time.

I'll consider that. According to this thought, if God is the only thing that truly exists, then there is no "I" or "you" or "everything." You can make the statement there is God because you already said that is the only existent thing.

Okay, Elopez, I think you’re right. I am a theist. I may believe that God is the only thing that exists, and I believe that God can’t have a god. But that doesn’t make me an atheist. Even if I believe I am sub-real to the only thing that is real, God, then from my sub-real position, there is a greater being. Ultimately, I am that greater being. Ultimately, my consciousness only comes from that higher consciousness, but nonetheless, from my position in this created, physical frame of reference, there is a God.

In a dream, the truth is all the dream characters are really just made from the mind of the dreamer; their illusory consciousness derives from the dreamers real consciousness, but nevertheless, There is a dream character and there is a dreamer, even if the dream character is illusory, it is still an existent illusion, and from that illusory point of view, there is a God sleeping in a bed making it all happen.

I may be an acosmic monist. I may believe that only God is real and that I am actually an illusion/delusion of God’s. Nevertheless, from this perspective, there is a God.

So, I am a theist, not an atheist.

Woot new orleans! Meanwhile, why is it, Edward, that you find the Christian God laughable.

When did I ever say the Christian God was laughable? Cut and paste a quote. Do you have to lie to make yourself out to be a martyr at my hands in order to give yourself some kind of credibility you don’t have?

I said the Christian God is not possible. That doesn’t mean Jesus Christ wasn’t right; it doesn’t mean he wasn’t the Son of God. It means the Christian version of God is impossible, that’s it. You ought to read your New Testament a bit more closely. If you did you might find that the way Christians typically view God is not in line with how Jesus Christ describes God.

[…]when your conception of God is contradictory? If anything, your definition is that of Creation, however you posit that it created itself and is sentient. I find it hard to see how a bunch of rocks, gas, and liquids - and timespace - can know it exists.

Apparently, the only conscious things in the universe are animals. So, if you find it hard to imagine rocks as sentient, that’s because they’re not.

EDIT: Not to mention that which exists can not have created itself, thus it would be impossible to create or be created by itself.

I’m not saying God didn’t create the universe. I’m just saying that He’s imagining it. I’m saying it’s not a separate substance from himself. The creation is sub-real to the Creator.

I would be wary of saying "I am this" or "I am that", because you may get stuck in one or the other and limit who you really are.

Good pont.

 

[Hillel1985]

I think I am a theist. I believe that God exists, but I believe the only thing that exists--really--is God. Paradoxically, that leads to a kind of atheism. Try imagining it and you'll see what I mean.

After all, if you don't believe in any of the gods ever invented by man, and you disregard every religion as complete nonsense, then what are you left with? But that's where I am.

I call myself a humanist, and I live out that philosophy in my life, but I call myself a theist, and most humanists are atheists. I don't believe I will survive after death, but I believe that God never ceases, and He's the only thing that really exists anyway. And so I don't find hope in resurrection, but then I don't find despair in not existing anymore.

There is no religion to describe what I am. I am like an atheist who believes in God. And now I know that God exists, because only God has a sense of humor like that. We puzzle over paradox while He laughs at it.

Many Dharmic faiths have teachings in which you current struggles and questions would fit in nicely. Have you looked at various Hindu Schools, Advaita, Buddhism, etc. I think your beliefs would fit in somewhere. Also, there is pantheism, maybe not of a naturalistic variety. You could also check out some liberal green branches of Christianity, like Creation Spirituality, or you could look into Paganism. Again, your beliefs will fit in somewhat. Trust.

 

[elopez]

Okay, Elopez, I think you’re right. I am a theist. I may believe that God is the only thing that exists, and I believe that God can’t have a god. But that doesn’t make me an atheist. Even if I believe I am sub-real to the only thing that is real, God, then from my sub-real position, there is a greater being. Ultimately, I am that greater being. Ultimately, my consciousness only comes from that higher consciousness, but nonetheless, from my position in this created, physical frame of reference, there is a God.

I am just going by what logic seems to tell us.

If you believe one God exists, then you're a theist and by definition cannot be an atheist. Though, how are you the "greater being" if you are simply an illusion and God is actually real? Would that not make God the greater being?

In a dream, the truth is all the dream characters are really just made from the mind of the dreamer; their illusory consciousness derives from the dreamers real consciousness, but nevertheless, There is a dream character and there is a dreamer, even if the dream character is illusory, it is still an existent illusion, and from that illusory point of view, there is a God sleeping in a bed making it all happen.

Before I start I have to ask an obvious question but I'm genuinely curious about. Do you really maintain that God is "sleeping"? Either way, this idea seems self defeating. For instance, you say God is the only real thing, correct? We are merely illusions, our perception of the world, the world itself, and so on are all such illusions. In turn, that would make our thoughts, reasoning, and ideas illusory. If that is so, the claim that God is only real would be illusory, and so God may not even be real at that point.

I may be an acosmic monist. I may believe that only God is real and that I am actually an illusion/delusion of God’s. Nevertheless, from this perspective, there is a God.

So, I am a theist, not an atheist.

Yes, you are definitely not an atheist. You may be an asomism. And I would say you think God is only real and we are illusions of Him. While I don't think that is atheistic, I do think it is, like I said above, self defeating. If we're an illusion, any claim about something real would be illusory.