Well I apologize too. I didn’t mean to say YOU were arrogant. I was just trying to counter the argument. I didn’t think you were rude at all.
Ah, gotcha. I was responding only to your post and the quoted part of AHunter’s–sloppy reading on my part. I join in the apology-fest: sorry!
Daniel
AHunter3, your OP is very good and reaches farther than I believed possible. If more atheists could understand that viewpoint, there would be less defensiveness on the part of some.
The word that I would like to see banished forever from theological discussions is “paranormal.”
Can’t you imagine other possibilities?
This is basically my perspective. (I have chaote tendencies, neh?) Every so often someone will come up to me and try to argue, “Well, the things that you call ‘gods’ might be emanations of your subconscious, symbols you’re manipulating, interesting psychological hacks, delusions, etc.!” To which my basic response is, “You haven’t come up with an objection that either makes it stop working or provided me with better tools.”
My thread of agnosticism/apatheism comes in being fundamentally indifferent to whether I’m “just” manipulating symbols or not.
I get lots of ideas <insert Groucho wag smiley here> but they seem to come from my subconscious mind running in the background, as it were, and putting things together. When it finds something good, it beeps for attention. I don’t see anything happening that isn’t brain-related. Certainly no communication.
God is a tag referring to several things. Some claim it refers to a hairy thunderer, as your OP said, but not many think that around here. Lib uses it refer to an entity existent in all worlds. Many Christians use it to refer to the god of the Bible - or some subset of properties of that God. Pantheists use it to refer to the universe, and deists use it for the now absent creator. All these tags are valid, but each user of the term needs to define what he means by it, and what to expect from that god, such as if it is physical, if it interacts with us, etc. If your God is absent, then praying to it is odd, but perfectly reasonable if your God listens. I think spiritual has the same property. If you use the tag god or spirit to refer to things we all (or most of us) agree exist, like the universe or ideas, then your god/spirit exists, but I might not agree that Joe Blow’s god/spirit exists.
Atheism, to make sense, has to refer to the lack of belief in somehow supernatural gods. The argument: Augustus was deified, Augustus thus was a god, we all believe in Augustus, thus we are all not atheists clearly has a problem. The problem is that although Augustus took the name God, he did not take on any supernatural properties (or we don’t believe he did) so we believe in Augustus as one with the property of being named god but not in Augustus as one with the power of God. Similarly, I believe Jesus existed, so I believe in Jesus in that sense, but I do not believe in Jesus as the son of god or one who did miracles or who was resurrected.
I believe in spirit as referring to our “spiritual side” - the desire to believe in angels and crystals and that kind of thing. I have practically none of that in my personality. I don’t believe in spirit as it refers to an actual supernatural kind of thing that influences us.
Meaning that he knows past present future…all possible arrangement of molecules in the universe and such?If this is the case.then what of the old doctrine of “predestinantion”?
If God exists outside time, then his knowledge is absolute, so praying for a differnt outcome (in our lives) is unwaranted and (most likely)ineffectual.
So, should we pray?
Ralph, if He knows all things, that’s not purely “all physical events” but also all thoughts and feelings that we have. So the universe that He structures could very well take prayer into account.
Not that “Jane has terminal cancer. Time goes on. Jane dies” is transformed by prayer into a different result, but rather that, from the beginning of time, God knows that the outcome will be: “Jane has terminal cancer. Fred prays that she be healed. God answers that prayer by acting to induce spontaneous remission. Jane gets better.” That allows for predestination and free will, and answered prayer as well.
You may find this thread of interest.
I figured you were somehow tying God to the world… If you are, and you’re not tying it to natural disasters, would it be fair to say that natural processes which we find to be bad are ‘not of God?’
You didn’t, I just think this complicates things.
But then, what do we really end up saying about God? Good to you may be bad to me, etc… would you be happy saying that God is 100% subjective?
blowero:
Wrong.
I believe there is an actual but nonphysical presence that is not an entity that is communicating with me.
FinnAgain:
Now that is a brilliant question.
I would start off by saying that God is not objective, which is actually more or less what I did start off saying in my OP, albeit worded differently.
Is that which is not objective therefore subjective? I would say no. Things that are objective are what they are, and mean what they mean, without varying depending on which observer they exist for or have meaning for. We could say of a given observer that they’ve either perceived the objective thing accurately or that they’ve failed to do so (e.g., perceived it inaccurately or failed to perceive it at all). Things that are strictly subjective, on the other hand, mean what they mean to an observer, and might mean something totally different to a different observer, and all of the meaning is a product of the observer not the object — perhaps even including the very existence of the object entirely (i.e., the old canard about whether a tree falling in the forest where no one can hear it makes any sound).
I would say that actually when you think about it, things are either objective or subjective. Most of what we experience exists somewhere other than “merely in our heads”, and yet our perceptions of it are always in part products of our personal history, our culture, and other contextual things. Even the most “objective” things, like a one-pound block of iron at room temperature sitting in front of us, for example, are perceived by all of us in nearly-identical ways but might be perceived very very differently by a hypothetical space alien who sees in the radio-wave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and has a highly developed olfactory sense that reacts to metals.
So (finally getting back to the point) this “God” experience and this related “prayer” experience of communicating: not subjective, because it is a process of self in relationship to something, although certainly not objective either.
“In relationship to what?”, one might well ask at this point. Ah, there’s the legendary rub. To get the cart and horse in proper chronological order, the necessity of the word “God” (along with other such terms) probably came after the attempt to describe prayer, as a placeholder to stand for that. Self is in relationship to something in a process out of which comes answers and understandings, but in relationship to what, indeed? “For now”, says some long-forgotten cavedwelling ancestor to the rest of the tribe, “I’m going to call it ‘God’, OK?”
What do I, personally, think corresponds, in plain-old atheist-friendly non-metaphysical terms, to that unknown? I will (tentatively) say it’s the entire Big Picture, the Universe, not merely its physical self but the rhythms of its music, the cerebrally pleasant organization of its natural laws, the sum total of That Which Is. (As experienced by me, of course, since that’s the only sense in which I can experience it). So I guess that puts me squarely in the pantheist camp. But I will quickly say that it’s almost not as important, that question, as folks tend to think it is. The emphasis should probably be on the communication process, the “prayer” thing.
Which itself, also being real, could at least hypothetically be put into atheist-friendly words, although a lot of that general subject area is one where our species’ understanding of our own heads and their workings is still kind of infantile, so the available vocabulary may not express it well in ways that those of us who do it would agree on as a description.
Aww, dammit…
That should read: “I would say that actually when you think about it things are neither objective nor subjective.” In other words that this binary system of categorization is fundamentally flawed.
Perhaps I think of God in anthropomorphic terms, and limited aspects, because I cannot think in divine terms, or infinite aspects.
Ya think?
Tris
entity:
that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence
presence:
the state of being present; current existence
I don’t understand how a thing can be present without being an entity. What do you mean by “not an entity”?
If you could share, in non-contradictory, standard English, those other possibilities, I would be greatly appreciative.
Gnosis.
For example.
~bows humbly~
Thanks very much.
I promise I’ll get to this, I’m just a bit jet lagged and easing into my spring break.
The sense of cameraderie and community on the Straight Dope Message Board is a thing that is present (that may be arguable, I suppose, but let’s stipulate it). Is it an entity?
My puppy has a certain endearing charm. Is that charm an entity?
I don’t mean to sound hostile — I guess we’re sitting here reading each other’s posts and thinking “Wow, this doper really doesn’t get it!”.
From my vantage point, it seems like you’re bringing along unquestioned premises about God and what God must be in order to exist. So I’d ask that you see if you can explain what there is about God as I’ve described God (which is somewhat more consistent with core historical theological beliefs than you might think) that makes “entity” apply to God but not to the abstractions “the sense of cameraderie on SDMB” or “my puppy’s endearing charm”.
Meanwhile, I’ll reiterate what I said in the OP: if God is eternal, God is unchanging and therefore isn’t mulling over what I just prayed about, considering it, weighing it, and then reaching a conclusion.
To me, an entity is one who does that kind of thing.
I respect your request and if it were within my ability to do that, I would do the best I could. But there are even ordinary, mundane experiences that are impossible to share in language – which is only a symbol of a concept to begin with.
If I could describe the God that I believe in in words, we would be back to the little baby-talk God again. That God is too small.
I realize this explanation gets me nowhere.
Zoe, thanks for the thumbs-up 
Glad you’re in here.