emotional

God is the Monster, the Jews are Frankenstein. When the Jews created God, they didn't realize what a monster they were creating. There's never been any nation that's suffered so much under the hand of God than the Jews. Any Jew who worships God is a criminal. Jews should be killing God, not worshipping him.

bgponder

Kankara, you say

I do not agree that this is a simple sentiment, either in the case of 1.)the believer who trusts in God as "backup" in crisis situations, or 2.)the case of the non-believer who "calls on" God in these situations and either converts, or returns abashed to his/her non-belief.

More: In situation 1, I would think that a believer's mentor concept, i.e. his/her trust in what he/she conceives of as God's guidance and wisdom through such various sources such as scripture, prayer, etc. would certainly come into play, but then this would also play in less dire circumstance. I would think in more extreme situations the focus of the believer's desire for God's help and intervention indeed resided in the belief in God's (higher) power. In situation 2, I doubt that there is any similarity, but rather the desire for the help of the power of God primarily.

Of course the mentor concept does not change, but the perceived need changes, since, as you say, the situation is seen as beyond one's capacity--and that would presumably include the wisdom and guidance we may have received up to that time.

More: Besides the fact that in the general usage of the term "mentor" such qualities as you decribe are not applicable, and seem in context antithetical to your argument, okay, at such a time why trust fallible humans over God, yet...

(and in reply to John Page) You seem to be equating God with the mentor concept, save the physical being, and it does not follow.

There is a complex of factors which bear on these situatuions and many have nothing to do with the mentor concept at all.

Peace and cornbread Barry

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>

bgponder

Walrus,

It seems twice superflous to speak of the "human" concept or understanding of God (are there any others we can talk about, with meaning?), and the same as a Being. Let's try the same statement without the fluff. "It is not very meaningful or adequate to attempt definitions of the concept or understanding of God, without some understanding of our nature as humans." I like that better, and I agree with it; I believe this is why many of us in these forums seek, and many of us have, a thorough understanding of it.

...ooookay, but I might not, too...

...practical it ain't already, but, oops, waitamminit, ok, ok, I'm with you now. You've made the leap from the "human" concept or understanding of God to God as power, m,kay. What the hell does that have to do with human nature?

...m'kay, you're gonna reveal this power which used to be a human concept...

What the hell?? I missed it, y'all!! Where did it go, the revelation? Well, cook my grits! Never had that happen before!

M'kay, m'kay. Thanks for sharing. But since we are talking about God the Father as per the OP, I must say I've seen even simple definitions that were more on target, like YHVH, the OT God, etcetcetc.

Is that anything like what you think about it?

Whatever for???

Well I obviously need to read up on Willum Jameses, but if he said that second part, I would have to comment and say, "But Bill, even though we may not have the words right at the moment, ain't it so that we can usually talk it up pretty good later, m'kay?"

Big ol' non-sequitur!! For that to be true it would have to be the case that you maintain that it is not possible to define God ("the power", the human concept or understanding, whichever one you said), yet it is implicit in the fact that you gave a definition of God as a metaphysical force, ol' buddy ol' pal.

Yeah, especially when we throw a lot of God-stuff out into the forum air. M'kay?

Peace, smartass cornbread(really, I don't mean nothing by it--you was just in the right place at the right time) Barry

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: bgponder ]

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

I agree with kankara. I agree that the god-concept mainly arises out of an emotional need to be able to turn to a 'higher power.' God is the idealized parent-sovereign -- one who is always there, dependable, perfectly fair, and gives unconditional love. Which to me, also explains, why people believe in a god: the concept, thus stated, is very appealing.

Jayhawker Soule

What was the point of your post?

WJ

Hi Barry!

I think it is fair to say what we are talking about here relates to 3 things (at the very least): phenomenology, pragmatism and rationalism. Since perhaps you and the other reader's are probably somewhat familiar with those philosophical entries, here's a 'synopsis' of our discussion thus far (about defining God).

"When I call theological formulas secondary products, I mean that in a world in which no religious feeling had ever existed, I doubt whether any philosophic theology could ever have been framed. I doubt if dispassionate intellectual contemplation of the universe, apart from inner unhappiness and need of deliverance on the one hand and mystical emotion on the other, would ever have resulted in religious philosophies such as we now possess. Men would have begun with animistic explanations of natural fact, and criticised these away into scientific ones, as they actually have done."

"But even if religious philosophy had to have its first hint supplied by feeling, may it not have dealt in a superior way with the matter which feeling suggested? Feeling is private and dumb, and unable to give an account of itself. It allows that its results are mysteries and enigmas, declines to justify them rationally, and on occasion is willing that they should even pass for paradoxical and absurd. Philosophy takes just the opposite attitude. Her aspiration is to reclaim from mystery and paradox whatever territory she touches. To find an escape from obscure and wayward personal persuasion to truth objectively valid for all thinking men has ever been the intellect's most cherished ideal. To redeem religion from unwholesome privacy, and to give public status and universal right of way to its deliverances, has been reason's task. "

"I believe that philosophy will always have opportunity to labor at this task. * We are thinking beings, and we cannot exclude the intellect from participating in any of our functions. Even in soliloquizing with ourselves, we construe our feelings intellectually. Both our personal ideals and our religious and mystical experiences must be interpreted congruously with the kind of scenery which our thinking mind inhabits. The philosophic climate of our time inevitably forces its own clothing on us. Moreover, we must exchange our feelings with one another, and in doing so we have to speak, and to use general and abstract verbal formulas. Conceptions and constructions are thus a necessary part of our religion; and as moderator amid the clash of hypotheses, and mediator among the criticisms of one man's constructions by another, philosophy will always have much to do. It would be strange if I disputed this, when these very lectures which I am giving are (as you will see more clearly from now onwards) a laborious attempt to extract from the privacies of religious experience some general facts which can be defined in formulas upon which everybody may agree. "

"The intellectualism in religion which I wish to discredit pretends to be something altogether different from this. It assumes to construct religious objects out of the resources of logical reason alone, or of logical reason drawing rigorous inference from non-subjective facts. It calls its conclusions dogmatic theology, or philosophy of the absolute, as the case may be; it does not call them science of religions. It reaches them in an a priori way, and warrants their veracity."


"In all sad sincerity I think we must conclude that the attempt to demonstrate by purely intellectual processes the truth of the deliverances of direct religious experience is absolutely hopeless. It would be unfair to philosophy, however, to leave her under this negative sentence. Let me close, then, by briefly enumerating what she can do for religion. If she will abandon metaphysics and deduction for criticism and induction, and frankly transform herself from theology into science of religions, she can make herself enormously useful. "

"Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation. There is in the living act of perception always something that glimmers and twinkles and will not be caught, and for which reflection comes too late. No one knows this as well as the philosopher. "
-------------

Speaking of logical proof, I suppose another approach would be the review of the phenomenon that takes place in the mind during the NDE. Of course, there are infinite materalist theories that ultimately returns us to... .

Anyway, I hope that provides a bit more insite to my previous post.

Walrus

Ender

Hello Barry! You're a brave lad, since most of my extra-heavy posts go unanswered. This will only help me flesh out my nascent thoughts!

Relation of ideas is a Humean term for what constitutes as a priori knowledge (mathematics or logic). I’m doing a little phenomenology here to elucidate the possibility of God’s existence as well as why people have consistently inferred or formulated such an ambiguous entity everywhere.

Not at all. When I wrote “fullness” or “wholeness” I was referring to an ontological concept of Being. As an aspiring phenomenologist I wanted to describe, not argue, for the poles of reality that accounts for the relation of consciousness (a being) to being in itself (another being)- the age old subject/object dichotomy. I want to be clear that this is an attempt at ontology, not metaphysics, which covers extra-phenomenal realities such as God or the noumenal world (Kant).

Consciousness is intentionality and nothing else (Edmund Husserl’s definition of consciousness remains the cornerstone for all succeeding phenomenologists); that it is fundamentally directed at something other than itself. This requires something other than consciousness and that is a non-conscious transphenomenal being. This account for reality as two “beings” automatically denies the competing account of reality proffered by both idealism and realism.

This “transphenomenal being” (or existence, if you will) is absolutely united. Any object is itself- i.e. that a soda can is a soda can- I do not mean it is connected to itself or any slight semantic bull, but that the object is itself. Change or alteration is no description of existence, because that implies a relation to consciousness. If we subtract consciousness from the equation, there is only being, which is at one with itself. What about Heraclitus, you may ask? What about change, flux, causality, movement, or passivity? They are all actually semiotics, human labels or symbols the consciousness attaches to “being” for its own purposes. Sartre eloquently put it best- being is “neither passivity nor activity.” By no means do I mean that being or brute existence “has” unity- it IS UNITY. It’s typical to take the phrase that “being is what it is” as a tautologous one but that’s incorrect since the word or qualifier “is” refers that being is wholly identified with itself. Existence or being is excessive- there is no explanation outside of the intentions of the consciousness. There is no reason why it exists, or whether it is necessary. It is positive, affirmative and opaque. Existence is conditional, or a contingent brute fact. Hopefully this explains why I described existence as wholeness, fullness.

Taken analytically, I can’t blame your interpretation or reading of my quick and tidy summation. Since I posit consciousness as a lack, and being/existence as a fullness, God as a combination of both poles of phenomenological description is a contradiction.

Only consciousness produces “nothing” or “negation” or “lack” in existence. Since nothingness/non-being/lack/absence has absolutely no objective status in reality they exist only within the mind. In order to reconcile with a solid ‘being’ “nothing” demonstrates the activity of consciousness and its relation to existence.

Imagine an episode of the three stooges where one of the characters went AWOL. This is an example of “concrete nothing” (whereas an abstract nothing is best characterized by square triangle) where the “non-being” of the character is real- not an idea of the mind but a concrete evidence of absence. This empty position is not a silly or vacuous act, since the rest of the group is affected. There were less yuks to go around, the other two had to pull their weight. Nyuk nyuk! This confirms absence and the expectation of absence, that it is real and the relation between consciousness and existence confirms its lack of reality.

Since theologians, for the most part, posit that God has a consciousness, this indicates a lack on God’s part- never mind his reputed omniscience/omnipresence whatever attributes.

Not even in the same parking lot of the ball park in question!

Have you had your Humean homework? Perhaps you could inoculate yourself with Hume against this phenomenological exposition of existence and consciousness.

~WiGGiN~
((added one sentence))

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]</p>

WJ

Hi ET!

I think I can follow you on some of the dialectic, but first, something I read in your profile viz. something you said about Kant begs a response.

If God is dead as you say, and the theist posits God has a consciousness, then Kant's God [his own conscious] could never have existed because to Kant, 7 was a prime number. Here now consciousness! Being and existence don't mix.

The fact is, Kant's God (his consciousness as he perceived it) *is* dead! He never took the leap! The leap from the apriori essentialism to aposterior existence.

Kant and Plato never made the connection. They had it all figured out. Intellectually at least, they thought so.


To answer the original question, there is indeed hope in the use of a little induction and phenomenology. Hope. Interesting word... .

Walrus

Ender

Walrus
There's nothing in my profile about Kant, unless you were reading the categorical imperiative into that Sartrean formulation of ethics. And i haven't the foggiest notion what you said- other than you probably misunderstand Kant's idea of God.

~WiGGiN~

WJ

Wiggin & all!

Just an observation: "What you are not you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot comunicate itself to you". [Farther Reaches of Human Nature-Maslow]

No amount of experience will change 1 + 1 =2!
Therefore: Atheists; stay exactly the way you are. Nothing in life changes

I still don't get why an Atheist is concerned about God?

Oh well, sounds like a personal problem... .

(?)

Walrus