The phenomenon and the explanation

[dlamberth]

You're absolutely right.

But the objective of this line of reasoning isn't to set a definitive standard for being alive, if that's even possible. Rather, the objective is to set a minimum standard for being alive.

So we begin with the absolute minimum...existing. Is existing all that's required to be called alive?

You don't need to change. You don't need to grow. You don't need to reproduce. You don't need to evolve. You don't need to think. You don't need to DO anything.

Is simply existing a sufficient measure by which to define being alive?

If it isn't, then God, if defined as being unchangeable, isn't alive.

Doesn't the Universe and everything in it meet those minimum requirements?

 

[partinobodycular]

Doesn't the Universe and everything in it meet those minimum requirements?

Absolutely, and so you can add as many requirements as you deem necessary. Does it move? Does it grow? Does it reproduce? Does it respond to its environment? And you can haggle over the particulars, but what I'm trying to establish is that God, as commonly defined as unchanging, does absolutely none of those things. So whatever your definition of life is, God doesn't meet it.

Therefore, describing an unchanging God as being alive is a misnomer, unless one reconsiders their concept of God. All that you need to do is accept the premise that God can change.

Now there are any number of reasons why theists reject this idea, but I would argue that all of them are flawed. Beginning with the very concept of "unchanging".

 

[dlamberth]

Absolutely, and so you can add as many requirements as you deem necessary. Does it move? Does it grow? Does it reproduce? Does it respond to its environment? And you can haggle over the particulars, but what I'm trying to establish is that God, as commonly defined as unchanging, does absolutely none of those things. So whatever your definition of life is, God doesn't meet it.

Therefore, describing an unchanging God as being alive is a misnomer, unless one reconsiders their concept of God. All that you need to do is accept the premise that God can change.

Now there are any number of reasons why theists reject this idea, but I would argue that all of them are flawed. Beginning with the very concept of "unchanging".

I think all of that works only if God is understood as being a physical being. And I don't believe that's the common understanding of the essence of God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is an imprecise word?

A word where there is no consensus as to its meaning in the relevant context. For example, 'God' in the context of world religion.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think all of that works only if God is understood as being a physical being. And I don't believe that's the common understanding of the essence of God.

I'll readily admit, that the common understanding of God is that He's alive. But in what sense is that true?

In what sense is God alive?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'll readily admit, that the common understanding of God is that He's alive. But in what sense is that true?

In what sense is God alive?

A non-physical entity has none of the common attributes of life (except, possibly movement, of the mysterious kind), but He's alive in Christian hearts, apparently...

 

[SelfSim]

I'll readily admit, that the common understanding of God is that He's alive. But in what sense is that true?

In what sense is God alive?

A non-physical entity has none of the common attributes of life (except, possibly movement, of the mysterious kind), but He's alive in Christian hearts, apparently...

My spirit of adventure is a non-physical entity that's well and truly alive in me .. but its part of who I am and not something separate from me.

So why is this God thing separate from those where its alive in their hearts? How did that happen, I wonder?

 

[partinobodycular]

My spirit of adventure is a non-physical entity that's well and truly alive in me .. but its part of who I am and not something separate from me.

There are lot's of different semantic interpretations of the word alive. Someone can be alive with excitement, or anticipation. The future can be alive with possibilities.

So to all the theists out there, I would simply repeat the previous question...in what sense is God alive?

 

[Astrid]

There are lot's of different semantic interpretations of the word alive. Someone can be alive with excitement, or anticipation. The future can be alive with possibilities.

So to all the theists out there, I would simply repeat the previous question...in what sense is God alive?

In what sense does God exist at all?

 

[SelfSim]

There are lot's of different semantic interpretations of the word alive. Someone can be alive with excitement, or anticipation. The future can be alive with possibilities.

So to all the theists out there, I would simply repeat the previous question...in what sense is God alive?

The sense in which a word is used depends on its context and in the case of God, that context is based on beliefs. I'm personally not too concerned about debating which is, and which isn't, the actual definition of some word or other. The process by which that meaning is arrived at, determines whether its a useful discussion, or not, (for me).

In the case of my sense of adventure being 'alive', I know it drives my behaviours (to a certain extent .. in certain situations) and that's what I mean by it being 'alive' in me. This, (I think?), seems similar to God being alive for those making that particular claim(?)

However, the idea that God is some 'external' being, is the absurd part. The conflation of the spirit of God with the sense of self, is then just deliberate obfuscation of this concept and is seemingly an attempt at removing the sense of 'self' in a fellow human being. Very mentally debilitating concept that one is, IMO.

 

[dlamberth]

In what sense does God exist at all?

That's a great question to be asking. It's one I feel all Lovers of God need to be asking themselves often. Here's my take that comes from the inner experiential or gnossis as some may call it, way of knowing. For myself, when I look beyond the outer forms of life and into the inner essence of a being, I'm aware of and see a divine connection with a universal life force that runs through out and within all of the cosmos.

 

[dlamberth]

I'll readily admit, that the common understanding of God is that He's alive. But in what sense is that true?

In what sense is God alive?

Speaking only for myself, the way I experience God is as pure consciousness. I wouldn't call that as being "alive" in the physical sense that you and I are familiar with.

 

[dlamberth]

So why is this God thing separate from those where its alive in their hearts?

It's not.

 

[SelfSim]

It's not.

Yet you also apparently attribute it to something 'externally separate' from you.
Ie, you said: 'a divine connection with a universal life force that runs through out and within all of the cosmos' .. all which is externally sourced from you .. yet somehow a view, not caused by you?
Makes no sense when you ignore your own role in coming up with that entire notion.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I'll readily admit, that the common understanding of God is that He's alive. But in what sense is that true?

In what sense is God alive?

First criteria of everything that is. Existence. What in all creation is not contingent on something else to exist? Alive or not. That one is existence. Not possess existence but IS existence. Same with life.

Therefore, describing an unchanging God as being alive is a misnomer, unless one reconsiders their concept of God. All that you need to do is accept the premise that God can change.

Change requires a beginning, middle and an end. Eternity doesn't.

 

[dlamberth]

Yet you also apparently attribute it to something 'externally separate' from you.

Nope...not true.

Ie, you said: 'a divine connection with a universal life force that runs through out and within all of the cosmos' .. all which is externally sourced from you .. yet somehow a view, not caused by you?

I never said any of that. Your projecting.
No one is separate from from it. We swim in it like a fish that swims in the ocean.

Makes no sense when you ignore your own role in coming up with that entire notion.

My spiritual path doesn't need to make sense to you. But also, you'll never understand where I'm coming from as long as your projecting and not trying to understand.

 

[SelfSim]

First criteria of everything that is. Existence. What in all creation is not contingent on something else to exist? Alive or not. That one is existence. Not possess existence but IS existence. Same with life.

'Existence' describes a concept that means something to human minds only (English speaking ones, at that).
Are you saying the concept of existence was created only so we, (and not any other single entity in the entire universe), could understand it?

 

[Eloy Craft]

'Existence' describes a concept that means something to human minds only (English speaking ones, at that).
Are you saying the concept of existence was created only so we, (and not any other single entity in the entire universe), could understand it?

What is =existence. To be. The word is a symbol and migratory. The concept is not invented not a symbol and not migratory.

 

[SelfSim]

Nope...not true.
...
I never said any of that. Your projecting.
No one is separate from from it. We swim in it like a fish that swims in the ocean.

What a fish swims in, is not inside itself, now is it?
Still making no sense ..

My spiritual path doesn't need to make sense to you. But also, you'll never understand where I'm coming from as long as your projecting and not trying to understand.

I am trying to understand, but you are being incoherent.
You said:

a divine connection with a universal life force that runs through out and within all of the cosmos'

So a connection links this supposed cosmic, universal, life force with yourself (and everything else) according to that statement.

No 'connection' would be needed if the concept is already perceived by yourself, therefore it must be external to you. Its not my projection that's to blame here .. its your guidance of the conversation using words which have no meaning and then expecting others to connect the massive gaps between the dots.

 

[SelfSim]

The concept is not invented not a symbol and not migratory.

Oh yeah? Then how am I somehow acquiring it meaning from what you write?

Whaddya think .. that the meaning behind the word 'existence' was somehow grabbed out of thin air, by our ancestors and then used as tool is by humans in the past and the passed down through the generations? Get real .. its a human invented concept .. no different from any other words and the meanings they convey and this can be demonstrated via the scientific method and the history of language development (which is more than anyone can say for the gobbledygook process you're using .. ie: at least science gives other people some access to understanding ..).