CMike
Zionist, proud to be
- Oct 25, 2009
- 9,219
- 1,172
- 190
Links?
Why God should not have attributes
- Thread starter Aristotle
- Start date
CMike
Zionist, proud to be
- Oct 25, 2009
- 9,219
- 1,172
- 190
Link?
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
And is consequently, in essence, a concession that there is no god.
CMike
Zionist, proud to be
- Oct 25, 2009
- 9,219
- 1,172
- 190
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Which supports the OPÂ’s premise, and the fact there is no god.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
If a god has a ‘will,’ then it’s not a god, unworthy of worship, and does not exist.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
If a god is to be ‘known,’ then it’s not a god, unworthy of worship, and does not exist.
This is likely a simple concept theists are incapable of comprehending, through no fault of their own.
So, assuming there is a God & people meet Him/Her, Can we trust human perception of an entity that transcends reality?
Most people seem stunned by events out of the ordinary - survivors of disasters, atomic bomb survivors, earthquakes, fires, tsunami. Why would an encounter with the divine be any different?
Most people seem stunned by events out of the ordinary - survivors of disasters, atomic bomb survivors, earthquakes, fires, tsunami. Why would an encounter with the divine be any different?
CMike
Zionist, proud to be
- Oct 25, 2009
- 9,219
- 1,172
- 190
The Irish Ram
LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough
By reading His book. He is not a mystery to His children.
God talks about people like Maimonides. Fool. Heretic. Lost.......
numan
What! Me Worry?
- Mar 23, 2013
- 2,125
- 241
- 130
'
The Bible is about the last place I would go to gain insight into the Divine!!
It is quite clear to me that no human conception can encompass the Divine -- rather, it is the Divine that encompasses all things.
One cannot know the Divine -- however, it is possible to manifest the Divine!!
The highest manifestations of the Divine in which my feeble spirit has participated are : Mathematics, Intellectual Beauty, Harmony, Compassion, and the like.
In one section of the Shorter Catechism of the Anglican Church, this occurs:
Question: What is the purpose of life?
Answer: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
An atheist like myself, with Neo-Platonic leanings, would change it:
To glorify BEAUTY and enjoy it forever
.
The Bible is about the last place I would go to gain insight into the Divine!!
It is quite clear to me that no human conception can encompass the Divine -- rather, it is the Divine that encompasses all things.
One cannot know the Divine -- however, it is possible to manifest the Divine!!
The highest manifestations of the Divine in which my feeble spirit has participated are : Mathematics, Intellectual Beauty, Harmony, Compassion, and the like.
In one section of the Shorter Catechism of the Anglican Church, this occurs:
Question: What is the purpose of life?
Answer: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
An atheist like myself, with Neo-Platonic leanings, would change it:
To glorify BEAUTY and enjoy it forever
.
Last edited:
Let me give you a starting point for how I might approach this subject.
I believe (as does science) that everything in the universe is connected by electromagnatism.
Is this evidence of the universiality of the godhead? (note that I am trying to remove the anthropomorphic aspects of the concept of GOD?)
I think it is.
In fact I suspect that is physical evidence of the mechanism of the ONENESS of existence.
I do not think this ONNESS has any attributes like love or truth, but like the mythical GOD it is everywhere and it effects every interaction in the universe.
Our MINDS are electromagietic and they are within the field of the universal magnetism.
In other words, our every thought is effecting and affected by the ONENESS of the universal magnetic field.
That is, in my opinion, THE oneness that we truly share with this GODHEAD.
Our every thought, our every heartbeat is part of that universal field/
I believe (as does science) that everything in the universe is connected by electromagnatism.
Is this evidence of the universiality of the godhead? (note that I am trying to remove the anthropomorphic aspects of the concept of GOD?)
I think it is.
In fact I suspect that is physical evidence of the mechanism of the ONENESS of existence.
I do not think this ONNESS has any attributes like love or truth, but like the mythical GOD it is everywhere and it effects every interaction in the universe.
Our MINDS are electromagietic and they are within the field of the universal magnetism.
In other words, our every thought is effecting and affected by the ONENESS of the universal magnetic field.
That is, in my opinion, THE oneness that we truly share with this GODHEAD.
Our every thought, our every heartbeat is part of that universal field/
CMike
Zionist, proud to be
- Oct 25, 2009
- 9,219
- 1,172
- 190
No even close. He was a great sage.
Aristotle
Senior Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 1,599
- 126
- 48
numan
What! Me Worry?
- Mar 23, 2013
- 2,125
- 241
- 130
'
I think it is a very unwarranted assumption to imagine that humans have any perception of Reality -- possibly some mathematicians do, but even that is debatable.
In my long and varied history of doubting, there is only one proposition which has defeated my ability to doubt: it is the first proposition of Proclus' Elements of Theology :
"Every manifold in some way participates the One."
Without getting into the technical meaning of "participates", the argument can be put into modern terminology by saying that without some form of unity in the manifold, the manifold would not be a manifold, but would disintegrate into a Borel Set -- which John Wheeler picturesquely described as "a bucket of dust." That is, the supposed manifold would disintegrate into unendingly infinitesimal fragments. It is a very clever reductio ad absurdum, particularly for the time period of Proclus, about 450 A.D. If you can come up with a really good argument demolishing Proclus, I will admit that you are a better sceptic than I, but not before. It may not be the last word in philosophy, but if anything exists, then it is true.
It's about the closest to a firm initial axiom that I have come across.
The Neo-Platonists: great stuff. But you won't get anywhere with them if you don't understand their vocabulary.
P.S. It is my view that almost all of the really valuable parts of Christianity are just second and third rate Platonism which has been transmitted in a distorted form from the Ancient World.
.
I think it is a very unwarranted assumption to imagine that humans have any perception of Reality -- possibly some mathematicians do, but even that is debatable.
In my long and varied history of doubting, there is only one proposition which has defeated my ability to doubt: it is the first proposition of Proclus' Elements of Theology :
"Every manifold in some way participates the One."
Without getting into the technical meaning of "participates", the argument can be put into modern terminology by saying that without some form of unity in the manifold, the manifold would not be a manifold, but would disintegrate into a Borel Set -- which John Wheeler picturesquely described as "a bucket of dust." That is, the supposed manifold would disintegrate into unendingly infinitesimal fragments. It is a very clever reductio ad absurdum, particularly for the time period of Proclus, about 450 A.D. If you can come up with a really good argument demolishing Proclus, I will admit that you are a better sceptic than I, but not before. It may not be the last word in philosophy, but if anything exists, then it is true.
It's about the closest to a firm initial axiom that I have come across.
The Neo-Platonists: great stuff. But you won't get anywhere with them if you don't understand their vocabulary.
P.S. It is my view that almost all of the really valuable parts of Christianity are just second and third rate Platonism which has been transmitted in a distorted form from the Ancient World.
.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Hi editec: this is a very good layout, and one that I think can be used universally to include both the theistic and nontheist types and approaches.
1. where you are using laws of science, these are under the natural laws. so there you would align with other scientists, atheists, social psychologists and sociologists, using our knowledge of the world (including how human nature works and laws of govt or religion as means of expressing and organizing by values and principles to communicate) to solve problems affecting health of humans and the planet
2. where you talk about ONENESS of the universe, this aligns with Buddhist/Bahai groups and also Universalists who focus on inclusion and harmony with all things. so this can be where the spiritual values align with peace/holy spirit and other symbolism of this level.
where these intersect and connect with other people's values of what is the greater Good for the whole, then that is where this is represented by the concept of connecting in agreement in Christ or by conscience and free will to establish higher universal good/truth. So that is like going through Christ to get to God. you can certainly get there from this path.
Anyone who comes in with objections or divisions, unable to reconcile with one of the angles you offer here,
has unresolved conflicts from the past that need to be forgiven and addressed, which is part of the reconcilation process anyway.
So whatever conflicts or issues arise from trying to graft on all other groups and approaches under natural laws or spiritual laws,
these need to be resolved anyway in order to fulfill greater understanding and knowledge that all these paths are growing toward.
Thanks E and I hope you will be part of team to take this on
and expland on it, so more people will participate and then take what
they gain and apply it toward changing how they work together on real world reforms as well!
1. where you are using laws of science, these are under the natural laws. so there you would align with other scientists, atheists, social psychologists and sociologists, using our knowledge of the world (including how human nature works and laws of govt or religion as means of expressing and organizing by values and principles to communicate) to solve problems affecting health of humans and the planet
2. where you talk about ONENESS of the universe, this aligns with Buddhist/Bahai groups and also Universalists who focus on inclusion and harmony with all things. so this can be where the spiritual values align with peace/holy spirit and other symbolism of this level.
where these intersect and connect with other people's values of what is the greater Good for the whole, then that is where this is represented by the concept of connecting in agreement in Christ or by conscience and free will to establish higher universal good/truth. So that is like going through Christ to get to God. you can certainly get there from this path.
Anyone who comes in with objections or divisions, unable to reconcile with one of the angles you offer here,
has unresolved conflicts from the past that need to be forgiven and addressed, which is part of the reconcilation process anyway.
So whatever conflicts or issues arise from trying to graft on all other groups and approaches under natural laws or spiritual laws,
these need to be resolved anyway in order to fulfill greater understanding and knowledge that all these paths are growing toward.
Thanks E and I hope you will be part of team to take this on
and expland on it, so more people will participate and then take what
they gain and apply it toward changing how they work together on real world reforms as well!
Last edited:
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Why should not my god have attributes?
It is MY abstract IDOL and I can do with it hhowever I please!!
So nahhh!
Dear Aristotle and Amrchaos:
I think the approach Aristotle is trying to emphasize is more like the Buddhist,
where you remain detached from any perceived assumptions as if you know absolute truth.
I agree to this extent, that the only chance to have any even a partial understanding of how infinite and universal God is, then we'd each have to let go of our own perceptions and bias.
However, this is NOT to say that we quit thinking at all and run around devoid of any thoughts, as this is impossible. We are human and going to remember, respond to and project our past perceptions and biases on EVERYTHING we consider and look at.
the point is to remain DETACHED, not to REJECT.
Aristotle if you become ATTACHED to rejecting all ideas about God
then you defeat the purpose because you already have a bias toward rejection.
the point is to be so open objective and neutral
that any ideas of God or no God can be equally entertained and explored in the space.
you and I and others will STILL have our pre-conceived notions and personal preferences/biases but that doesn't have to interfere with other people sharing their own!
does this make sense? and yes I AGREE
the best approach to understnading themeaning of God is
the buddhist way of letting go.
it is to empty the mind that you can be filled, not remain empty and get attached
to the idea!
p.s. so i find that "Buddhism" helps to let go in order to find universal meaning of life and God and Christian faith helps to keep consistent with what you find; "Constitutional laws" of due process and petitioning by assembly and free speech, with respect for religious and intellectual freedom, are the best way to understand Christian concepts of embodying laws by conscience, of mediation and rebuke for equal forgiveness correction and justice; and Christian prayers for forgiveness and healing are the best way to demonstrate how the holy spirit works in real life to renew and restore relations and change things to heavenly peace.
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
Our New Secretary of Homeland Security is an Embarrassment- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 0
-
-
New York Times analysis concludes USA missiles killed many children in Iranian school attack- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 4
-
Deep Red Maryland county angry over ICE detention center- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 2
-
