![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 30, 2004, at 1:10:27
Berkeley thought that our true nature was that we are ideas in the mind of God. Freud suggested that God's true nature was that he was an idea in the mind of human beings.
I have to say I go with Freud on this one, but thats if we are talking 'omni-god' where God is (by definition)
(1) All powerful
(2) All loving / benevolent
(3) All good
Posted by alexandra_k on August 30, 2004, at 1:10:28
In reply to the nature of god, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2004, at 19:16:33
Hope I don't cause offence. The truth is that I don't believe in omni-god. If we analyse the concept of omni-god I think that we find it is contradictory which means that it is impossible that it can be instantiated. Which in English means not only that there is no such thing, but that there can be no such thing. Many religions (of the Judean / Christian tradition) agree that omni-god is what they mean by god, and so I take issue with those religions.
But then spirituality can be a bit different from religion. If I had to pick an established religion I'd be a buddist (especially in their maintaining that buddah wasn't actually God, just a very spiritual guy).
I accept science. What matters most to us is not explained or dealt with by current sciences often enough, but then the concept of god does not do it for me either.
The concepts of god and immortality will not do everything that we have tried to make them do...
Posted by nicolas on August 30, 2004, at 1:10:29
In reply to Re: the nature of god, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2004, at 19:27:20
Well, in my faith I don't confuse logic with intuition. There are many planes of existence and some of these are experiences as spiritual truths, expressed through metaphor and mythology. They should not be tested through rationality but if I had to rely on my rational mind alone (!) I would be in great trouble.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 30, 2004, at 1:10:29
In reply to Re: the nature of god, posted by nicolas on August 28, 2004, at 19:44:14
> Well, in my faith I don't confuse logic with intuition. There are many planes of existence and some of these are experiences as spiritual truths, expressed through metaphor and mythology. They should not be tested through rationality but if I had to rely on my rational mind alone (!) I would be in great trouble.
Nicely said Nicolas, I think I agree with you, and I have been told that I am excessively rational too much for me to be able to (rationally) doubt it, ha!
I agree that faith is a seperate matter from logic, and there are also more alternatives than (a) concrete existance as a material object on the one hand and (b) non-existance, or existance only as an idea or concept on the other. (For instance consider voices, centers of gravity, or fields of force).
In studying arguements for the existance of god (and arguments against the existance of god) and considering the problems with all of the above, it would seem that there are rational grounds for concluding that belief in the existance (or non-existance) of god is not a matter of logic. That seems to leave faith, as you note.
One might do well to consider the function of religious discourse. Some maintain that it is an expression of emotion, or a language game that does not involve making literal assertions about the way the world actually is. As such religious claims are not truth evaluable, and so it is meaningless to argue about whether god exists (in the world) or not; to argue this is to try to make religious discourse do more than it is capable of doing.
But then when people do ask whether god actually exists or not, they seem to be asking whether he REALLY does exist or not, and so perhaps here they are attempting to make religious discourse and concepts do more than they can.
Posted by nicolas on August 30, 2004, at 1:10:30
In reply to Re: the nature of god, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2004, at 20:30:11
Hello.
You should read up on Buddhism ... maybe you have already. Since you're on this board I assume you are having some difficulties in your life, and Buddhism says we all suffer, and proposes useful, skillful ways to end suffering.
I highly recommend Thich Nhat Hanh.
Have you been reading post-modern philosophy? Isn't the term 'language game' from Wittgenstein?
Anyhow, I agree about the limitations of concepts. Fostering a sense and commitment to lovingkindness, however, is an action and a way of being, not a concept.
Posted by nicolas on August 30, 2004, at 1:10:30
In reply to Re: the nature of god, posted by nicolas on August 28, 2004, at 21:33:44
'The third Dharma seal is nirvana. This means solidity and freedom, freedom from all ideas and notions. The word "nirvana" literally means "the extinction of all concepts." Looking deeply into impermanence leads to the discovery of no self. The discovery of no self leads to nirvana. Nirvana is the Kingdom of God.'
-Thich Nhat Hanh, no death, no fear
Posted by alexandra_k on August 30, 2004, at 1:10:31
In reply to Re: the nature of god, posted by nicolas on August 28, 2004, at 21:33:44
> Have you been reading post-modern philosophy? Isn't the term 'language game' from Wittgenstein?
Yes, indeed I was referring to 'language games in the Wittgensteinian sense. Though I was also making reference to an earlier work "The Tractatus"
"6.43 ...If good or bad willing changes the world, it can only change the limits of the world, not the facts; not the things that can be expressed in language. In brief the world must thereby become quite another. It must so to speak wax or wane as a whole. The world of the happy is quite another than that of the unhappy.
6.431 As in death, too, the world does not change, but ceases.
6.4311 Death is not an event in life. Death is not lived through. If by eternity is understood not endless temporal duration but timelessness, then he lives eternally who lives in the present. Our life is endless the way our visual field is without limit.
6.4312 The temporal immortality of the human soul, that is to say, its eternal survival after death, is not only in no way guaranteed, but this assumption in the first place will not do for us what we always tried to make it do. Is a riddle solved by the fact that I survive for ever? Is this eternal life not as enigmatic as our present one?"
> Anyhow, I agree about the limitations of concepts. Fostering a sense and commitment to lovingkindness, however, is an action and a way of being, not a concept.Yes, Wittgenstein in the "Philosophical Investigations" considers that religious discourse isn't to be understood as making truth evaluable claims about the world (a position which is known as Wittgensteinian Fideism). He considers that instead, religious discourse involves a set of practices, or activities. An action and way of being in the world, indeed.
Posted by rayww on August 30, 2004, at 1:10:31
In reply to the nature of god, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2004, at 19:16:33
I agree that meditation is essential in our world of frenzy to achieve some sense of peace. But peace can also be found in the midst of trauma, stress, and distress.
Peace, forgiveness, love, etc can be a gift of the spirit that can come into our body and displace other negative emotions. It has happened millions of times to millions of people, and there are millions of stories that document it.
The state of nothingness you refer to is a state of conscousness only. There are three types of nothingness states that I am aware of.
1. When you change something of substance into a mental image of nothing. (Satan would have us believe God is not)
2. When you enter the sub conscious state of nothingness, or blank out your mind (nirvana, is that what you call it?)
3. When we realize the nothingness of ourselves as compared to God. http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/12/7#7I choose to believe there is no space where nothingness actually exists. http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/88/37#37
Berkeley and Freud each had an idea about the nature of God, but had they examined the evidence and witnesses that testify of the existance of God, they may have beleived differently. For some it is given to know, and for others to believe on their words.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=d&c 46:13-14&search.x=28&search.y=9I can say I know there is a real live God even though I have not seen Him. I can also say I believe in the recorded words (evidence and witnesses) of those who have seen Him.
Others can say they don't believe, or they can say they believe in something entirely different, and that is all right. We may all choose to believe how we may. Even when all truth is made known we may still choose whether or not to believe. Why? Because we are capable of choice.
What is more powerful, choice or nothingness? What actually gets you farther? Making good choices, or entering into your own nothingness? Is this a real state of being or an imagined state of being? I am asking these questions because I am interested in this topic. I want to know what is gained from a person trying to leave this world and become only himself, in a meditation of nothingness. There has to be something more to this than nothing, or people wouldn't believe so strongly in it.
One more question, when one achieves the desired state within him or herself are they inspired to go out and care for one another, and spread this peace throughout the world by showing love and compassion by their choices and actions? How does this all connect to reality?
I hope you don't take offence by my questions. I sincerely wish to know how this makes reality a better place to dwell.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 30, 2004, at 23:54:51
In reply to Re: the nature of god, posted by rayww on August 30, 2004, at 0:20:23
No offence taken! I appreciate your thoughts. I have to admit I got a bit lost with the "nothingness" stuff, but I liked what you had to say about meditation. I really should get back into that one, I like the sense of peace and relaxation it brings me.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2004, at 7:58:52
In reply to the nature of god, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2004, at 19:16:33
> Berkeley thought that our true nature was that we are ideas in the mind of God. Freud suggested that God's true nature was that he was an idea in the mind of human beings.
>
> I have to say I go with Freud on this one, but thats if we are talking 'omni-god' where God is (by definition)
>
> (1) All powerful
> (2) All loving / benevolent
> (3) All goodI like what Heinlein said about God: "God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It says so, right on the label."
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on August 31, 2004, at 20:26:23
In reply to Re: the nature of god » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2004, at 7:58:52
Can God make a rock so big (heavy, whatever) that God can't move it?
If he can make a rock that big then he is not all powerful because he cannot move it.
If he cannot make it then he is not all powerful becuase he cannot make it.A variation...
(1) God is all loving (benevolent)
(2) God is all powerful
(3) Evil exists (or alternatively, moral evil exists - think here of people who kick puppies or who steal lollipops off kids, or the holocaust, or your favourite example).Here the problem is that
(1) God can prevent evil, but he chooses not to - in which case he is not all loving (benevolent) for allowing evil to exist.
or (2) God cannot prevent evil, in which case he cannot be all powerful.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 1, 2004, at 17:42:22
In reply to Can God make a rock so big..., posted by alexandra_k on August 31, 2004, at 20:26:23
I don't mean to offend anyone with my posts on the nature of God. I guess that maybe what I am trying to express is that to me faith, hope, love, and all those things are attitudes that we take, and things that we can foster. So for me, the concept of God will not do what we have always tried to make it do (I use the 'we' there because this is the way that Wittgenstein said it).
If there is nothing objective to give us a meaning for our life and a point to it all, then that means that we are in a unique positon. We get to create our own meaning. The world, or what is does not contain any higher purpose, or any meaning, or point. But this means that life is a journey within which we have the opportunity to discover or create our own meanings, attachments and relationships, and our own purpose.
To me I sense the mystical when I consider that we have evolved from macro-molecules. That at one point in our evolutionary past there was to reason, mind, consciousness, meaning, intentionality, or purpose - and now, today, there is.
My mantra (when I meditate) is 'I am an active information processor' and I actively focus all of my attention on my breathing. I like to think that faith, hope, love, charity and all the rest are attitudes that can be fostered aside from what one may or may not believe about God.
This being said, I do respect others positions on this, and I also respect that while there may be other ways in which to foster these attitudes, some people find that the best place for them to do that is via church or established religion, or even by their personal belief in God. All I really wanted to say is that all those things are not exclusive to those who believe in God.
With respect to reason and argument, one might consider that our ability to reason and argue is a gift from God. Aquinas, Descartes, etc attempted to use reason to show that it is rational to believe in God and thereby win converts. Centuries of argumentation, however, have resulted in inconclusive arguments either way. So for every argument there is an equally valid / logical counter-argument. But is it wrong, or misguided to attempt to use argumentation to establish Gods existance or non-existance? I think that it is a valuable exercise because it establishes something very strongly indeed: Religion and the notion of God is not a matter of logic, it is not a matter of what is most logical or most plausible. It is a matter of faith. And if logic can show us that then that (in my opinion) is a significant discovery indeed.
I won't be responding to any further posts on this topic (and I don't really think anyone is terribly interested on my thoughts on this one anymore at any rate).
Posted by Skittles on September 1, 2004, at 19:04:20
In reply to Okay - Enough!!!, posted by alexandra_k on September 1, 2004, at 17:42:22
Just wanted to mention that I, for one, AM terribly interested in your opinion on this topic. In fact, I've enjoyed having at look at what everyone has had to say. It's been an enlightening thread and I appreciate that you started it. Thank you.
Posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 21:12:36
In reply to Re: the nature of god, posted by alexandra_k on August 30, 2004, at 23:54:51
No opinion given here just a couple of interesting thoughts by others on the subject.
I don't remember the exact quote on this first one but it goes something like this:
The proof of the existence of God is our need to believe in him.
(I think it was said by Uno Muno.)OTOH,
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
- John Lennon
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.