Alright, you seem to be arguing mainly three things. They actually aren’t too different from a perspective I once held. So, if you don’t mind, I’ll ask a few of the questions that stumped me and gradually turned me over to non-theism.
In what perceptible way would a hypothetical materialistic universe differ from your conception of the conscious universe that exists around us?
Put another way, what if there is one singular thing in the universe that you suspect lacks consciousness? Let’s say, my daughter’s copy of 101 Dalmatians that I’m holding here in my hand, though for arguments sake, it could be a poster that you’re debating, or even Pat Robertson. In what way would we divine the consciousness of this object to allay our suspicion?
If you’re attributing consciousness to all of existence without a clear way to separate consciousness from its absence, aren’t you just asserting without even personal experience (i.e., “evidence” that is available only to you) that existence == consciousness? Or, really, aren’t you just defining it to be so?
I do not know to whom you are addressing this but there is consciousness and non conscious things (as we call non- counscious) in existence , such as a rock soil, stars etc. The Universe is “in” Existence not separate from it.
Some scientists think there are other Universes than ours…no one knows for sure. If they are right than the other universes would also be in existence.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” (1954 Letter to an atheist)
“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.”
People pray to whatever they call God, I personally do not think an all knowing being would need prayers.I do not see a need for prayers,but if it helps someone else to pray so be it. I do not think Existence needs worship and in that sense to me God is a word people use for the unexplained. The word(notice I said word) God ,can be person place or thing all at the same time. Existing would imply a verb also. It is my personal thought and if people disagree that is their right to do so.
Disregarding the irrelevancy of whether Einstein agrees with you, you do indeed have the right to use the word “God” to mean “what ever exists”, but this tells us nothing about either God or existence, but merely about how you’re using the words. There’s nothing there to disagree with.
If you believe in the Bible, God was said to tell Moses" I am what is": Meaning Existence. The psalmist says (in Psalm 81 or 82 depending on what version you read), “Don’t you know you are Gods, sons of the most High?” Jesus used this to explain why he called God his father. We can be pretty sure we Exist, as we are communicating. The definition of the word God has many different meanings to different people. Because you disagree with my definition of the word is your right, and it “Is” my right to translate it as I wish. One can say the word God exists because it is a word, if it means a separate Being, then, “A Being” is a separate and disputable thing and would just be a part of Existence( As we are)…Hence the many religious beliefs.
What one can think they know about a God or it’s nature came from people who lived generations ago, and they passed on what they believed, not what they know. One would have to ask;what exists out of existence? It can’t be nothing because then it would be something …and Exist !!!
I explicitly agreed with you in the words you quote. My objection to your definition is not that I think it’s “wrong”. By your definition, to believe in existence is to believe in God. By your definition, to be an atheist one must disbelieve in existence.
Actually, the rendering of the Tetragammaton as “I am who am” is more of a Medieval or Scholastic interpretation of the name, one that fit in well with the particular metaphysics of the then current schools of thought.
While there is still not complete agreement on the topic, (since the word is an archaic verb form that is susceptible to interpretation), the more accurate translation appears to be “I am who I am.” It was given in response to the request by Moses to know God’s name and serves as a rebuke: “I am who I am; you do not need to box me in with names and labels.”
Feel free to come up with any explanation of the universe and essence and existence and everything else that you wish, but be careful trying to rely on bad translations and derivative philosophies to support your claim.
I haven’t sudied Hebrew but in college I had a religion prof (who happened to be a Catholic priest) tell me that the Tetragammton translated most literally to something like “I am am,” or (as he put it) “I am ‘being’ itself.”
I don’t know how accurate that is but he had a PhD and I don’t.
The saying" I am who I am is a very poor answer for a supreme Father to give to his child(If you believe that is what Moses was told). Of course there is no proof that Moses was a real historic person.
The earlier translation of the Bible was the way I quoted it. Essence needs some thing from which to exist, Universe also must be in existence. My claim that what ever Exists takes in everything. As I stated earlier in a post It is impossible for Nothing to Exist.
I would translate your" don’t box me in with names and labels" to mean God (in that sense was saying to Moses,you are making me too small.
There can be nothing out side of Existence if so it doesn’t Exist. The psalmist was quoted as saying, even if I go into hell you are there,the religions that say God is everywhere, would imply that God then must be all that Exists.
I would think that we would really want to discover the earliest meaning in ancient Hebrew, and that meaning is pretty much lost–with multiple speculations abounding. So basing any current attempt to explain the divine on our late and fallible reconstructions may be fun, but it is clear that none of those reconstructions can be used to declare actual knowledge of what God intended and using them to decalre with absolute authority some guiding principle of understanding the universe (or existence) is just silly.
Just as the Scholastics loaded up the meaning with their preconceived notions, it would seem that you are following in their honored tradition, picking a translation you like, then using it to impose a meaning on the world.
However, it is a perfectly good answer for an almighty deity to give to a person who presumptuously seeks to be handed a name (in a culture where the possession of names give the possessor power over the named). Invoking the “supreme Fathe” construct, (a notion that probably arose among the later prophets), to criticize a portrayal in a story that is not using that theme is simply cherry-picking one’s criticisms.
In my understanding of existence we do not believe in Existence we can know(in our own minds anyway) that we exist, Existence is a proven fact,one cannot be out side of existense.You don’t just believe you exist you know it.Other people can see you and say you exist. We are corresponding so I can say with some certianty that you Exist.
In that Historical time Most( if not all) of the Gods had a name, and the writer must have thought it necessary for his god to have a name. the people of that time seemed to feel that their god was the strongest, best etc,. I have heard people in modern times call the Christian God, The great I AM.
I’ll go along with that. Is “God is all that exists” a proven fact? Show me. The fact that some religions may have held this to be so is, of course, no proof.
The majority of Christians I know, and the Old Testemant, seems to indicate that God is everywhere; in order to be truly everywhere God would have to be every thing. There can be no boundries to God and such a God could have nothing outside itself. Otherwise where could God exist? In order to Exist you need a place in which to exist. To be separate from Existence would make such a being smaller than existence ,
I am not saying this is proof of a creator God, nor a God to worship, I am saying my translation of the “word” God just means Existence, and that anything that exists, is in Existence, or it is non- Existent.
I’m quite in agreement with all of this. What I am trying to say is that to believe in nothing more than Existence is indistinguishable from atheism. (Atheism being not a bad thing in my book.)
I haven’t been following this thread. (it makes my head hurt) But…The OT doesn’t support the notion that God is personally omnipresent. There is a distintion to be made between being all knowing and all powerful (and therefore able to be aware of all things in all places) and being “everywhere.” The bible doesn’t support an omnipresent God, and he is said to reside in the heavens.
I would ask for a cite as to the foundation of your argument, but if God exists it would be unknowable to humans. If God is a [spirit] person (albeit the Sovereign of the universe) than there is in fact boundaries to his person. (To the extent a spirit person’s boundaries can be indentified & measured)
As to the Judeo-Christian God, the bible indicates that there is no boundary to his knowledge or power. However, there is nothing to support your statement “There can be no boundries to God and such a God could have nothing outside itself.” The problem is that statement is the foundation of the rest of your conclusions. I haven’y read the thread, and I don’t if we’re talking about a vanilla plain wrapper god, or the super-duper one that the Jews/Christians follow, but…if that’s the one we’re talking about, the bible —and God’s own words in the bible—would contradict your reasonings.