The plot and premise of “American Gods” by Neil Geiman. Interesting idea but a mediocre read.
Why do you believe there is exactly one Creator? Also, you ask for a definition of “god”, but can you define “entity”? When I hear the word “entity” I think of a physical thing.
Yeah, given the state of the world, it was certainly designed by a committee.
That’s a more complicated question than I’m prepared to answer right now. What I believe is much simpler than why I believe it.
Maybe the next thread I’ll open up(if no one beats me to it) will be “For The Religious: Why do you believe what you believe?”
No other gods other than the Trinitarian Christian God exist.
I identify as Catholic. I am, however, speaking for myself here.
I claim to believe in the Christian God, the Trinitarian God. I say claim because I approach questions of belief as instruments of practice rather than definite statements about what is objectively true. Anyway…
God for me is not a being like other beings, or a thing like other things. I think of things as having two fundamental attributes: their essence, or whatever it is that makes them distinct, and the fact that they exist, their existence. God, as the primordial and creative Reason, is the only entity whose existence is his essence. Anything else may or may not exist; its existence is contingent. God, however, exists by virtue of himself. He is the principle of existence upon which all other things are contingent and which is itself non-contingent.
This is what makes God unique, if you will. Entities like Satan, angels, Zeus, leprechauns etc., are supernatural, yes, but are usually thought of as supernatural beings. Their existence therefore, if they do exist, is contingent on the creative Reason, and they are not “Gods” regardless of whether or not they exist or how powerful or good they are. They are far more similar to us then they are to God.
This train of thought leads to the common statement that the Abrahamic faiths worship the same God, in spite of the fact that most Christians have the Trinity and Jewish and Muslim traditions differ on many points. Because the attributes of God that anthropomorphize or personalize him are secondary to God’s nature as the non-contingent, creative essence of existence. Anyone familiar with Islam will recognize the definition offered here as very similar to Ibn Sina’s (known in Latin as Avicenna). This definition, furthermore, is not specific only to the Abrahamic faiths, and I’ve read ruminations on this idea in Hindu and Buddhist traditions. I have no trouble acknowledging others as worshiping the “same God” as me to the extent that they take on this perspective.
I remember, though, that Jesus was a person who walked around, and most religious people believe in a personal God. The philosopher’s God might feel more rational in some respects than the “bearded man in the sky,” but it also raises many other questions.
The lesson here for me is that the philosophical conception of God I outlined above is not actually adequate, it remains infinitely far from understanding the reality of God. No theology is completely satisfying. Anthropomorphisms can, at their best, promote humility, and can reveal true wisdom in circumstances where concepts fail. I don’t have a problem with embracing them. Every conception of God, even the statement that God is too vast to comprehend, is not anywhere near sufficient. Humans are finite beings and can only possess fragments of truth. Community and dialogue helps because it allows us to share our different fragments.
I’m starting to ramble here and I don’t want to edit so I’ll try to summarize:
The God I believe in is not a being like other beings but rather infinite transcendence, the primordial and creative principle of being and knowing.
Even this definition, though, I recognize as a finite approximation of infinite truth. I still find value in seeing God as a personal God, recognizing and appreciating that others have the right to do the same in their own way.
Therefore, others can (and often do) at least partially conceive of God (although in e.g. Buddhism this is seriously complicated) in the way I mention in point 1, and in that sense I have no trouble acknowledging that we “believe in the same God” even if we disagree about things like the nature of Jesus.
People who, on the other hand, conceive of deities as beings (albeit, perhaps, omnipotent or immortal beings): I do not relate their statements about such beings to the existence of God and I usually don’t feel a particular need to think about the truth of those being’s existence one way or the other.
Very succinct, ñañi; I don’t think I’ve ever heard it expressed that way before. And it’s certainly consistent with the Name God told Moses to call em.
Though I’m not sure I see why you’re reluctant to call God a “being”, given that you’re identifying es existence as such an important trait.
But here’s where the argument breaks down – if God “exists” in precisely the same manner as my car exists, wouldn’t “he” appear exactly the same to everyone? Especially if we’re describing a God who loves and directly interacts with his children; why wouldn’t God reveal an identical form to all potential believers, or at least insert hidden “codes” into his Word (such as E=MC[sup]2[/sup] or the formula for DNA) that could be connected by skeptics outside the faith?
No, I’ll stick with the conclusion that Man created God in his own image, and that’s that. (Whether that still counts as “existence” is yet another matter…)
I don’t understand – how could your reason be more complicated than “I read it in a book,” or “God speaks to me in mysterious ways,” or the ancient standby, “It’s what I was raised to believe and that’s that, don’t confuse me with facts!”
You think your car appears exactly the same to everyone?
Thanks Chronos. I mentioned Ibn Sina in my post but actually Karl Rahner has been more of an inspiration to me on this issue.
That was my mistake. I do think God is a being (and a conscious subject and person; I believe in the incarnation, after all), I was just trying to emphasize his uniqueness as a being different from all other beings. Thanks for catching that.
Well of course the argument breaks down. It’s theology.
I don’t think your objection is completely valid, though. The way your car (or for that matter, you or I) exist is through participating in the transcendent primordial self-presence (As Rahner would put it) of God. God is infinitely transcendent (being the principle existence upon which all things are contingent) and humans are present and participate in God’s transcendence as finite beings.
As finite beings, then, our knowledge of truth is fragmentary and we do not all possess the same fragments. You possess some and I possess others. No one possesses none, since the very act of existing is itself a way of possessing truth. For me, God did his job (if I can be flippant for a moment) by allowing us all to participate in truth. Putting codes in scripture (or, say, having miracles happen all the time) won’t actually get us as finite beings closer to understanding the infinite. Objecting that that didn’t happen seems odd to me, though I understand that people having honest differences of belief and being unable to handle it has caused tremendous suffering and I understand how people could wish for just a little more clarity. But I think that’s the wrong lesson to take in the long run. Personally, I gain a lot by pondering my finitude.
As I type this I wonder, well, if we don’t need more signs than we have, why were we given the signs we were given? I have some thoughts but I think that would be a hijack.
With the exception of the color-blind, of course it looks the same. Why wouldn’t it?
For someone with “Buddha” in his SN, that seems a remarkably limited view. No offense meant.
Your car appears very different to someone in a helicopter than to someone lying on the ground, to someone on your driver’s side than to someone on the passenger side, to someone inside the car than to someone in the trunk. Your car definitely looks different in motion than standing still, and different still when jumping out of its way.
We might all be seeing the same car, but we each see it differently.
There are many things about your car that could be perceived differently. Especially in items we use every day, minute details are looked over. If I were closely scrutinizing your car, I would probably be able to point out imperfections that you had grown so accustomed to that you forgot they existed. I, to put my two cents in, think that believing in God, and understanding the nature of God are two very different things. The belief in god,(yahweh, buddha vishnu allah), causes far less problems in the world than the idea that one religion, any one, is the only understanding of the nature of god that is correct.
Sure, but what about all the other cars?
You seem to be saying that all cars are just manifestations of the same car.
Your question: ‘Why would not God appear identical to all people?’ Perhaps we are meant to all come together in Love, one family of God and man(kind). We are all given various pieces of the greater God. So then there is a hidden code, a puzzle to put together, not as confirmation as you are looking for a code, but of divine purpose and our place as God’s children - all of us all important all gifted and all needing each other to be complete.
Yeah, sure…how’s that working so far? //original rolleyes//
No no, what I’m saying is (and which Latro previously pointed out) is that different angles of the same car aren’t going to be that much different from each other, and putting the angles together will reveal to all observers that you’re looking at a sky-blue Escort. (Maybe some will argue it’s closer to silver, others may say turquoise.) But you’re not going to confuse the make & model with a black Mazda, or a green Gremlin, or a red F-150 truck, or even a flatbed trailer with heavy machinery strapped to the bed – which, essentially, is analogous to how all the varied, multitudinous religions on planet Earth describe as their image of God. (Hell, some claim there are multiple cars, some claim the car’s actually parked at the McDonalds on the corner, and some go so far as to claim there’s no car in the garage at all!)
It wouldn’t be so bad, except religious people are prone to proclaiming that their car-vision is the only valid one, and endlessly demand that everyone else abandon their own car-visions. Just look at how many people in this thread have declared their belief in the Judeo-Christian God as the ONLY one, with no evidence or support given – and this is a message board where agnostics and skeptics rule the roost.
To be fair, this atheist specifically isn’t asking for evidence to back up beliefs about what people think about the existence of gods other than their own-I merely what to know what those beliefs are.
So, what’s the debate?