Defining God
Before we can say anything meaningful about God we must first describe what we are talking about. So that means we must define the concept God.
Before I define it I want to lay down some ground rules. First of all any concept of God that I define must make sense. It should not break the rules of logic. Because if it doesn't make sense then we can't talk about it in a meaningful way, so what would be the point?
I would also like the definition to closely resemble the name that it has been associated with religious concept as closely as possible without breaking the first rule. In other words I don't want to define God as my toaster, and then say that because my toaster does exist, therefore God exists. This as you would agree would serve no purpose and would be just a waste of time.
Now that I have laid down the rules, let's begin. The concept of God as I understand it is thus: God is cause of all that exists. All that exists is within God. It can also be called Reality or Existence, either of these terms are fine. I do not mean to distinguish between the cause and the effect, because I view them as one and the same thing. It's therefore impossible to conceive of the individual things that exist without God.
A good analogy that helps me think about it is The Matrix. The Matrix is a complex virtual reality which is an exact replica of our Universe. If you pulled the plug on the Matrix, everything that existed in the Matrix would cease to exist, because the matrix is the cause of all the things within the Matrix. Now, the Matrix is just a virtual reality so it's not the ultimate reality, it's just a sub reality that resides within a greater reality. The ultimate reality that "holds" all other realities is what I refer to as God.
Before I define it I want to lay down some ground rules. First of all any concept of God that I define must make sense. It should not break the rules of logic. Because if it doesn't make sense then we can't talk about it in a meaningful way, so what would be the point?
I would also like the definition to closely resemble the name that it has been associated with religious concept as closely as possible without breaking the first rule. In other words I don't want to define God as my toaster, and then say that because my toaster does exist, therefore God exists. This as you would agree would serve no purpose and would be just a waste of time.
Now that I have laid down the rules, let's begin. The concept of God as I understand it is thus: God is cause of all that exists. All that exists is within God. It can also be called Reality or Existence, either of these terms are fine. I do not mean to distinguish between the cause and the effect, because I view them as one and the same thing. It's therefore impossible to conceive of the individual things that exist without God.
A good analogy that helps me think about it is The Matrix. The Matrix is a complex virtual reality which is an exact replica of our Universe. If you pulled the plug on the Matrix, everything that existed in the Matrix would cease to exist, because the matrix is the cause of all the things within the Matrix. Now, the Matrix is just a virtual reality so it's not the ultimate reality, it's just a sub reality that resides within a greater reality. The ultimate reality that "holds" all other realities is what I refer to as God.
posted by B. Spinoza at 7:04 PM
13 Comments:
(1) God is cause of all that exists.
(2)All that exists is within God.
You use two sentences to describe God which mean different things. Do you mean to imply that they are the same?
For example, the matrix meets the requirements of (2) (for narrow definitions of "exists" and/or "all") but not (1).
More importantly, neither (1) nor (2) imply the most important characteristics of the common religious conceptions of God -- that God is (in some more or less obscure way) (1) a conscious Being and (2) that He/She/It/Them has/have certain preferences for us (again in some more or less obscure way.)
>You use two sentences to describe God which mean different things. Do you mean to imply that they are the same?
yes, they are the same. I'm using cause in the sense of intrinsic cause, not an external cause. Nothing is conceivable without God so therefore it is the cause of all that exists
>More importantly, neither (1) nor (2) imply the most important characteristics of the common religious conceptions of God
In an obscure way my conception of God has these things too.
(1) Conscious being - since it's undoubtedly true that we are conscious beings, and it's also true that we are within God, therefore God too contains consciousness. Although, I wouldn't say that God itself is conscious.
(2) The preferences I would say God has is the Laws of nature. for example gravity is a preference or will of God
I will add that I don't think Rambam either attributes these things to God either. God isn't something that has any human attributes, that's just how the common person falsely understands it.
Nothing is conceivable without God so therefore it is the cause of all that exists
I can conceive of a universe without God, so it must be conceivable.
since it's undoubtedly true that we are conscious beings, and it's also true that we are within God, therefore God too contains consciousness.
By that logic, the atmosphere contains consciousness. It may be true, but it's not meaningful.
How does your God differ from the Universe?
>I can conceive of a universe without God, so it must be conceivable.
That depends on your definition of God. if you define God as my toaster, or as a powerful bearded diety on a throne somewhere, then I too can conceive of the universe without god. But if you define it like I did, then you can't.
>By that logic, the atmosphere contains consciousness. It may be true, but it's not meaningful.
true, it's not that meaningful.
>How does your God differ from the Universe?
well, if you define of the universe as everything that exists, then my god is the same as the universe. But if you there are multi-universes then my God would contain all universes. I said in my post that you can use the term reality or existence instead of God and it wouldn't change the meaning.
The question if there can be more than one universe, and what that would exactly mean is an interesting question
I said in my post that you can use the term reality or existence instead of God and it wouldn't change the meaning.
So why call it God? What are the implications?
JA,
Good question. I asked that very question in the first post of this blog.
I touched upon the answer here
But I think there may be some important implications, not with the word per se, because what's in a name? but with the perspective of looking at reality as a single whole as opposed to individual entities which were randomly put together by chance. I will elaborate on it in a future post
Spinoza,
To define God is to reduce some idea to that which cannot be considered God. "God" is the ultimate concept which gives meaning to human life. If it were just the beginning in a causal chain to our existence then it would be as relevant as any other link in the chain. In fact, its temporal distance from ourselves would lessen its importance in relation to more recent causes. If “God” is a true Matrix then it holds little direct relevance except in terms of comprehension of the universe and how to best manipulate it to our goals.
For “God” to be really relevant to human existence it must be useful in determining how to live life in some sort of moral, value, or otherwise meaningful way. It needs to become a part of life, not just some unrelated fact in existence.
>To define God is to reduce some idea to that which cannot be considered God
so you're saying we can't define God? That means a person can't say if God exists or not since there is nothing to affirm or deny
>"God" is the ultimate concept which gives meaning to human life.
you don't say what it is, so how can it give meaning? How does this undefined thing give meaning? Do tell.
> If it were just the beginning in a causal chain to our existence then it would be as relevant as any other link in the chain.
I never said it was just a beginning
>For “God” to be really relevant to human existence it must be useful in determining how to live life in some sort of moral, value, or otherwise meaningful way.
I believe my conception of God can give you instruction. I just haven't said how yet.
>It needs to become a part of life, not just some unrelated fact in existence
it is existence itself, not just an unrelated fact. Life can't be conceived of with out it
Spinoza,
"you don't say what it is, so how can it give meaning? How does this undefined thing give meaning? Do tell."
The only part that requires defining is the part which gives meaning.
"I believe my conception of God can give you instruction. I just haven't said how yet."
So, nu?
"it is existence itself, not just an unrelated fact. Life can't be conceived of with out it"
Yeah, so? Life can't be conceived without spacial dimensions either. That doesn't mean that we give spacial dimensions any special regard in our lives. It happens to be a fact of our world, but not especially important in how we live our lives in this world.
>The only part that requires defining is the part which gives meaning.
and that is?
>So, nu?
patience. All good things come to those who wait
>It happens to be a fact of our world, but not especially important in how we live our lives in this world.
no, it is our world, it is us too. I'm saying that there is only one thing, and that thing I am calling God. Which also means that it sets the boundries of everything we do
Spinoza,
"and that is?"
Beats me. This is a work in progress.
"no, it is our world, it is us too. I'm saying that there is only one thing, and that thing I am calling God. Which also means that it sets the boundries of everything we do"
Ok fine, but so what? In what way is it "God"? This "identity of the whole" may in fact exist, but what makes it important in your life? It may set the physical laws and so on, but it hardly tells how you ought to be.
i agree w/ you that the matrix is a theologically sophisticated film. too bad they had to ruin it w/ reloaded and revolutions.
I just ignore those films, and focus on the positive. The suckiness of those movies doesn't take away from the goodness of the first
Post a Comment
<< Home