“Does something that APPEARS to be the result of Intelligent Design, NEED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED by an Intelligent Designer?”

The mere effort of turning this otherwise affirmation for too many, into a genuine question of the potential existence of ‘god’, is 99,9% of the task. The other 0,1% is irrelevant.

For many, whom unquestionably assume that everything that surrounds us holds some sort of ‘intelligent (divine intent) purpose’, the statement above can only be an affirmation. There has to be an ‘intelligent designer’ behind this obvious (to them), and thus unquestioned ‘intelligent manifestation and purpose’.

This is where being responsible for perspective is key. For one to assume the affirmation as ‘true’, as opposed to raising the question genuinely, is to unconsciously and strictly view life from a nominalist perspective. Is this unique view, from so many other possible views, what many refer to as ‘free choice’?!?!? (this is what I choose to think, so there!!! - vs - what are other possible views of approaching this or that?).

Given a ‘nominalist’ thought structure, which makes material existence sovereign over ‘essence’, and which unconsciously governs our collective ‘thinking foundation’ (western world societies mainly) since the middle ages, ‘god’ existence can only be conceived from material, and physical paradigms (limited, separated from essence). That would be ‘god’ in man’s image, versus all existence in god’s image.

From my humble point of view ‘abra’, you have gone through a most respectable demonstration of grappling with the question from an ‘essence’ perspective.

Grappling because it is not automatic. Grappling because there is no consensus for the ‘essence’ based perspective in our overwhelmingly material based thinking world.

There is tremendous merit in my opinion, to do violence to the segregating mode of ‘nominalist’ thinking.

Putting material existence ahead of essence, denies and negates essence. That is a bit like someone refusing to breathe!!! Insane you say?!?!? That is the metaphorical result of our collectively pervasive and exclusive mode of 'nominalist thinkink'. It negates 'essence' (breathing)!!!

Wonder why life occurs to most as such a trial??? Try not breathing for a while!!! Of course 'impossible'!!! Just so with 'essence'. Impossible to eliminate. And yet, by insisting on putting the material thinking filter first, we deny essence. We go through life ignoring it.

On the other hand, putting the 'essence' perspective first, far from negating our material form, allows for our own re-appropriation of ‘being whole’. It puts material form in its right perspective so to speak!!!

Also important to point out, nominalist thinking dates back to the middle-ages, where the Church had huge trouble with the notion of ‘essence’ based thinking which had dominion until that point.

Coming from ‘essence’ (whole, no separation), there was no need for all of religions interference and human control agenda.

One with ‘god’ in essence, made religion and churches redundant and obsolete. Church leaders didn’t like that idea.

Fascinating, ‘ain’t it’ ?!?!?


Great job ‘abra’ !!! and you’re darn right, LET’S GO SAILING !!!

So true. It never ceases to amaze me why so many supposed ‘spiritualists’ insist on giving God physical properties! A God that has a master plan, and passes judgments on people, etc, etc, etc,… is really nothing more than a huge physical Santa Claus imagined to exist in a ‘place’ call a ‘spiritual world’.

But it truth, that whole idea flies in the face of what ‘spiritual’ even means.

If we really believe that God is spirit then we need to realize that God is quite different from the physical world. We can’t keep pushing ideas and concepts concerning the physical world onto God.

To suggest that God even ‘thinks’ in a digital fashion is to suggest that God has a physical mind.

I believe that it much more sense to believe that God merely ‘perceives’ in an analog sense. And that’s a whole different notion than ‘thinking’ in a digital fashion.

Like you say, God is more of a spiritual ‘essence’ than a physical ‘existence’. To believe that God is like Santa Claus really is to give him a physical ‘existence’. People can’t get away from thinking of God in a physical Newtonian sense. But God has already shown us that she is more ‘quantum like’ in her nature.

Philosophy of religion is one of the most fascinating areas of philosophy. It addresses not only the perennial question Is there a God?, (I believe yes) but also the questions If there is, then what is he like? (all Powerful, all knowing) and, most important of all, What does that mean for us? (salvation)

If they are successful, then none of the classic arguments for God’s existence proves exactly the same thing. The ontological argument, for instance, purports to prove the existence of a perfect being; the cosmological argument purports to prove the existence of a necessary or eternal Creator; the teleological argument purports to prove the existence of a Creator concerned with humanity. Each of these arguments, then, bears not only on the question of God’s existence, but also on the question of his nature, of what he is like.

The same can be said of many of the arguments for atheism, Many of these arguments seek to exploit a perceived incoherence in the traditional doctrines concerning God’s nature, raising questions as to how those doctrines are best formulated. The challenge If God is just, then how can he also be forgiving?, for instance, has led theists to understand both God’s justice and his forgiveness in ways that can be reconciled. The challenge If God is all-knowing, then how can our choices be free? has prompted a similar approach to divine omniscience and human freedom. The arguments for atheism, then, no less than the arguments for theism, influence the way that theists conceive of God, so contribute to the project of answering the question If there is a God, then what is he like? What Does that Mean for Us?


The implications of classical theism, if it is accepted in all of its details, are clear enough: If God exists then we were created for a purpose; we are valued, loved. If God exists then we also have an incentive, not to mention a moral duty, to fulfill this purpose; our eternal fate hangs on whether we follow God, as we were created to, or rebel against his authority. Classical theism is therefore often felt to restrict our freedom, but to do so not because we are unimportant, but because we are important and so have a duty of care to ourselves and to others. Theism thus affirms our value even as it constrains our freedom.

Atheism, plausibly, exerts pressure in the opposite direction: it affirms our freedom but, it is often thought, threatens to compromise our value.

In general, those who have lacked belief in a next life have thought that this makes our choices in this life all the more important. For instance, the thought that the absence of a divine Creator who defines who we are gives us absolute freedom to define ourselves. Because there is no God, there is no God-given human nature, and so each of us is, in a sense, his own Creator. We are free to be who we want to be. Which I myself just don't think is the case.....

Atheism has also, rightly or wrongly, been associated with a pessimistic view of human value. If we were not placed here on purpose, but are the accidental product of random processes, and if we came from the dust and will return to it, then in what sense are we important? There are, broadly speaking, two ways to respond to this question. Atheists can, on the one hand, argue that value is about what we are, rather than why or how we got here. They can thus affirm that we are special despite our inauspicious origins. Or they can, on the other hand, accept that we have no special value, but argue that it is better to reconcile oneself to this fact than it is to deceive oneself with religious belief.

Whatever conclusions we reach about these questions, the time spent answering them is well spent. Religious belief or unbelief underpins the way that we live our lives. The more clarity and confidence we have in our beliefs on these issues, the better.

Monotheism is the view that only one God exists (as opposed to multiple gods). For me with no emotion, God is traditionally described as a being that possesses at least three necessary properties: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (supremely good). In other words, God knows everything, has the power to do anything, and is perfectly good.

And one can strive to live their life as such.

Feral, with all due respect your views here represent a very limited view of God. A view that God can only be separate from us (which is an extremely problematical in philosophical sense). This is because if God is separate from us, then we must also be separate from God, which implies that we are entirely separated entities on our own capable of having existence outside of God.

You view places God in the role of an ‘external’ authoritarian passing judgments on the behavior of beings that are truly separate from this God.

Your following comments illustrate this view,….



You seem to be hung up on an image of God as an authoritarian who judges (i.e. is capable of granting salvation to external beings). This is a very complex picture of a God actually, and raises serious philosophical paradoxes and conundrums that suggest that this picture of a God actually side-steps the question of what we are?

Clearly in this picture of God as an external authoritarian we are separate beings from God. And this of flies in the very face of what we started out to ascertain (i.e. where we came from). If we are separate from God, then God must have created us from material or essence that was also separate from God. In other words, this picture actually requires that something else exists outside of God and in addition to God! This type of explanation of God is not an explanation at all, but rather a complication. It suggests a sculptor of clay but fails to address the nature of the clay.



Here you give god the attribute of being ‘perfectly good’ (a subjective concept to begin with) because ‘good’ can only have any meaning to the authoritarian who is passing judgments. It’s not an absolute concept because anything this authoritarian God deems to be ‘good’ is ‘good’. And therefore the very notion of ‘good’ is basically reduced to - “Whatever the authoritarian wants’.

In other words, if you were all that exists, then anything you choose to do would be ‘good’ because there is no one else around to argue with you.

But seriously, this is precisely how it would work with any God. The concept of a God being ‘perfectly good’ is a meaningless concept, because there is nothing to compare that concept of ‘goodness’ with.

Moreover,…

Even if we allow a concept of ‘absolute good’ (which really has no meaning), then to suggest that in the beginning God was all that exists, suggests that everything from that point forward would need to be ‘absolutely good’ because there simply doesn’t exist any ‘absolute bad’ from which God could create ‘absolutely bad’ things. Therefore no ‘absolute bad’ can be created.

So the notion of ‘absolute good’ is a meaningless notion that has no philosophical merit.

In other words, this philosophical notion of God holds no water and falls apart. From a philosophical point of view it simply doesn’t work.

And the idea of God being a separate entity from us flies in the face of the question of ‘What are we?”.

If we are separate from God then we must be something separate from God!

Duh?

That should be pretty straight-forward!

So if that’s the case then we have totally failed to address our true essence. Your picture of a separate judgmental God that can actually reject us as though we are separate beings, actually suggest that our essence is not of God!

So then where does that leave us??? What is our essence if not the essence of God?

All you are really saying, without actually realizing it, is that we are beings in our own right completely separate from God. You haven’t answered the question of what we are at all, instead you’ve only complicated the question immensely placing the concept of God in a position of being external to us (and vice versa!)

Now we have two separate entities to explain!. God, and us! You’ve just complicated the whole problem rather than solving it.

Feral, with all due respect your views here represent a very limited view of God. A view that God can only be separate from us (which is an extremely problematical in philosophical sense). This is because if God is separate from us, then we must also be separate from God, which implies that we are entirely separated entities on our own capable of having existence outside of God.

ANSWER: Well for me I would have to disagree. We are not on the same level as God...but nonetheless can have a relationship with Him.

You view places God in the role of an ‘external’ authoritarian passing judgments on the behavior of beings that are truly separate from this God.

Your following comments illustrate this view,….

QUOTE:
What does that mean for us? (salvation)

and,…

our eternal fate hangs on whether we follow God, as we were created to, or rebel against his authority.


You seem to be hung up on an image of God as an authoritarian who judges (i.e. is capable of granting salvation to external beings). This is a very complex picture of a God actually, and raises serious philosophical paradoxes and conundrums that suggest that this picture of a God actually side-steps the question of what we are?

ANSWER: Actually it is as simple as you stated it James. And as complex to you as it seems....It is not for me. And how does it side-step who we are? I am a human being who makes God all authority in my life....I live within the guidelines of what God intended and I am overall a very happy, content, human being. Who also knows through my faith that I will always be protected, gifted, given gifts, that will guide me on the path that He (God) has set for me.

Clearly in this picture of God as an external authoritarian we are separate beings from God. And this of flies in the very face of what we started out to ascertain (i.e. where we came from). If we are separate from God, then God must have created us from material or essence that was also separate from God. In other words, this picture actually requires that something else exists outside of God and in addition to God! This type of explanation of God is not an explanation at all, but rather a complication. It suggests a sculptor of clay but fails to address the nature of the clay.

ANSWER: God created us in his likeness......so if for me He created me to be the essence of who He Himself is, was, and always will be. I don't have to question it....for it just is. But that does not mean that others can't question it....because they have not yet found. And so I would say that God is the Clay, the Sculptor, and the Sculpture that he uses for a reference. But this in no way means that I am ever separate from God.....I am not....

QUOTE:
God is traditionally described as a being that possesses at least three necessary properties: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (supremely good). In other words, God knows everything, has the power to do anything, and is perfectly good.


Here you give god the attribute of being ‘perfectly good’ (a subjective concept to begin with) because ‘good’ can only have any meaning to the authoritarian who is passing judgments. It’s not an absolute concept because anything this authoritarian God deems to be ‘good’ is ‘good’. And therefore the very notion of ‘good’ is basically reduced to - “Whatever the authoritarian wants’.

In other words, if you were all that exists, then anything you choose to do would be ‘good’ because there is no one else around to argue with you. laugh

ANSWER: Well that is true in a sense. But you also have to look at the whole picture....and also look at it as I do.....so you may understand what I am seeing in the scenario. If I believe my God to be "ALL GOOD" and he created me in that image.....then you would assume that would mean that he created us to be like him. But because of circumstances.....Adam and Eve that is now not the case. Because as God created all sinless and in His perfect world that would of been the case....But as he also gave us freewill to choose then there ya go. And is it really a case of "being good" because no one else is there to argue with you? You can be alone and know you did something wrong!!! right...


But seriously, this is precisely how it would work with any God. The concept of a God being ‘perfectly good’ is a meaningless concept, because there is nothing to compare that concept of ‘goodness’ with.

Moreover,…

Even if we allow a concept of ‘absolute good’ (which really has no meaning), then to suggest that in the beginning God was all that exists, suggests that everything from that point forward would need to be ‘absolutely good’ because there simply doesn’t exist any ‘absolute bad’ from which God could create ‘absolutely bad’ things. Therefore no ‘absolute bad’ can be created.

If someone for example Mother Teresa was nothing but good all her life....would she be absolutely good.....I would say yes. And if Manson kept on killing would he be absolutely bad....and what separates these two.....choice.


So if that’s the case then we have totally failed to address our true essence. Your picture of a separate judgmental God that can actually reject us as though we are separate beings, actually suggest that our essence is not of God!

So then where does that leave us??? What is our essence if not the essence of God?

ANSWER: Well again of course you can look at it that way....And for me my God will reject those that reject him. Thats just how it is....But if that is not your God....then I don't really know for you do I?

All you are really saying, without actually realizing it, is that we are beings in our own right completely separate from God. You haven’t answered the question of what we are at all, instead you’ve only complicated the question immensely placing the concept of God in a position of being external to us (and vice versa!)

ANSWER: You might be separate from your God...But I am totally at one with mine. And I think I answered it beautifully for myself and my beliefs....and as I can't know yours....really all I can do is answer for My God and Myself....right?

God is all powerful, and all knowing and made us in his likeness that through circumstances was broken and sin was brought in....Does that separate us from the Father....No.....Does he give us chance after chance to redeem ourselves.....yes....Will he ever forsake us.....no......Is he forgiving, yes, loving, yes.

I think it says enough..

Clearly you missed the whole point.

We were having a philosophical discussion concerning ‘how’ things could be explained.

All you’re doing is ranting on and on about how you would like to ‘believe’.

You’re not the slightest bit concerned with whether or not your beliefs make sense.

Moreover you are living in fear.

You are scared to death to even entertain the thought that you might be anything other than a slave to a dictator. In your mind that very thought is rebellious against said dictator and could result in you being viewed by him as being insubordinate.

You’re entire belief is based on doing precisely as dictated to.

If you like the picture of our creator being a judgmental dictator that is raising us to be his eternal obedient pets, then so be it. Maybe that truly is the bizarre predicament we are actually in. Perhaps that situation is true. Personally I think that’s a really sad situation if it is true.

However, none of that is even relevant to the discussion at hand. We weren’t talking about what we believe God to be like based on pure faith or indoctrinated stories. We were addressing notions of what God must be like based on reason. We are basically talking about the existentialism of God. How a creator could exist, and how that creator could have created us.

You just by-pass all the philosophic questions and basically just proselytizes the beliefs an existing dogma with which everyone is already familiar.

We already know what you believe on pure faith.

That’s not what we are discussing here.

'feral' wrote,



You may be absolutely be right about your self-proclaimed :

"...And I think I answered it beautifully for myself and my beliefs... I think it says enough..."

... and it might very well '... say enough...' if it were on topic, on a thread like the "coffeehouse chat for Christians" thread, which, among many others, clearly invites people to share their 'christian exclusive' perspectives on life.

Unfortunately, on this thread, your otherwise 'good' words miss the mark , and are completely 'OFF TOPIC' !!!

This thread invites people to contribute thoughts from a philosophical perspective: LOOKING AT RELIGIONS FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE.

As always, I would never insinuate there is anything wrong with a particular religious perspective, christian or otherwise. However, we are not discussing religion from the christian perspective here.

And while christians like yourself, are more then welcomed to partake in this philosophical discussion thread, it would be most decent of you, and most appreciated if you could write 'ON TOPIC', and in respect of the simple and clear guidelines propoesed by our OP, which we all strive to honor:

"... The goal is to include only the philosophy of religion and it's applications... and should attempt to stray completely away from applying human emotion to the notion of 'God'... otherwise known as 'anthropomorphism'..."

Speaking of sticking to topic, and just before you posted, we were making great progress IMO, in distinguighing the prioritzing of the 'nominalist perspective', as opposed to prioritizing the perspective of 'essence', in discussing the open question of the 'existence god'.

Please feel free to join in, and contribute your thoughts from that vantage point.

Actually my first one I did.....It was the second in which was taken out of guideline due to how it was directed at me.

Simultaneous postings?!?!?

That's like coming home with a hot pizza in your hands, only to find that your partner has already cooked a fiv course meal?!?!?


Ah well... I guess dinner was served!!!

:)

It seems as if Abra and Voile are going 'sailing', while Di and I are shooting pool... Is there a 9ft. billiards table on that yacht?

Seriously though Voile, you and Abra both are sources of potential thought for me in this 'arena' of thinking... My pursuit of 'knowing' has many more facets as a result of the conversations I have had with you and many others here...

I struggle with the concept of human perception as it has been explained for so long... there is something missing... and always has been, from my perspective...

The parameters of essence are our capacity I believe it is just that(nonexistent)... and I feel that human knowledge inherently lacks the 'dimensional perspective' of that which one has not perceived...'God'.

It is the pursuit of determining what we 'know' something cannot be that may just leave us looking for what cannot be. We use our knowledge according to what we have established as accepted truth in order to grow this knowledge of accepted truth, based upon accepted truth. Do we really have an accurate perspective of 'essence'? Of that which is a priori truth?


I was reading recently in a philosphy forum as a poster used a part of an agument from Kant concerning 'pure reason'... it follows...





I feel that this line of argument is weak, at best. I wonder how others feel about this quote from Kant. I argue strongly against this notion represented as human a priori and supposedly intuitive knowledge... it is a humanistic concept... entirely supported by what? Geometry? That which is 'true'?... A conceptual platform of human understanding built upon human understanding... Is it all we have?

Man invented the 'line'.

There is no such thing.

What can we truly know?

Before? After? Essence? Existence? Time? Line?

Personally, I believe man has developed a system of rules built upon what we had already established as rules... much like the canonization of the Bible... self supporting, based upon how it fits... although, there is not the same refusal level to change the rules, it takes a complete new level of understanding to dispel the old...

The human spherical journey is indeed that.

The beginning of the end of the beginning of the end...

It begins at the end and ends at the beginning.



What is 'God' without creation?

What is 'God' without creation?

I humbly bow to you James...

Sorry, school has started up again so I will be popping in and out. However, if all I get to say tonight is one thing, I just want to jump up and down and say:

YES YES YESSSS - Abra, thank-you

That's it, that's where the computer - the diagnostics came in. OF COURSE, I know about digital and analog - I couldn't find it - just could make it come to mine.

Your patience is abundant! Your final conclusions are exactly the wordless 'intuitive' thoughts I was ...visualizing (for lack of a better word).



Wow, how nice to have a facilitator! Thanks Abra

Voil wrote:


Wonderful, thought process, and explanation, following stands up to reason. When the 'essence' is 'perceived' incorrectly it may (and did) equate to an inadequate definition. The definition that seems to have created much of the 'problem'. If 'essence' is defined through a thought process, derived from the "material existence", than it can only lead to the material nature of a Creator.

You continue your thoughts in this way:



Yes, fascinating!

However, Creative has this to say:


Yes, but is it something missing OR missing in action? The action being 'communication'. Communication, for us, REQUIRES 'physical' interpretation. Has the need to communicate in this fashion created the problem that Voil has realated? An inability of the majority to take down the perceptions of the 'material'?



Here is a good example: Creative you have communicated a thought in terms of the physical, and expect it to realate in terms of the 'essence'. What is 'dimensional perspective'? We have ALL somehow come to the determination that we MUST be able to communicate every perception, and every thought, even of the intuitive - but in communication we can only define and describe on the physical "material" level.



Do you realize that you have made the proper connection between 'communication' and our inability to 'comprehend' our existence without our 'physical senses'? Do you see that you have faced and answered the conundrum when you say "A CONCEPTUAL platform of human understanding..."? The conundrum is not so much in the 'understanding' it is in the way it must be presented "communicate". What is the PRIMARY GOAL of humans today? "mass communication"! Thoughts and intuitions can not gain a foothold when we have been trained from birth to depend on 'communication'that stems from our physical senses.



What has been 'canonized' are the 'laws' of communication. We are co-dependent and least, because our very nature has been restricted to communicating to the masses. And you are absolutely correct "it takes a complete new level of understanding to dispel the old". Could that understanding be 'taught'? (to children)?



Once again, Creative, I would ask you, what is creation? Do you see the limitations we set for ourselves when we are 'forced' into a mindset that demands a 'specific' definition to be applied for the sake of communicating in a physical world?

Perhaps, that is the reason we need to 'discount' what is NOT before we can percieve what is. But will we be able to 'communicate' it?

So, Creative, what if God is not the 'creator' you expect? What if God is cureing its own ills by fixing a problem within it?

Then, what is God. (circular and as Voil said "Fascinating, ‘ain’t it’ ?!?!)

So true. It’s difficult enough to communicate in-person with the added sense of body language and so forth. To be restricted to only using words (which other people may well use differently then we do) makes typed ‘communication’ even more difficult.

Di openly recognizes that she finds it quite difficult to come up with words to properly express her intuitive ideas. She understands something intuitively (an analog understanding) and then must translate that intuitive ‘truth’ into non-intuitive words (a digital communication) in order to communicate her thoughts to another human being. Some analog intuitions can be extremely difficult to put into digital form without loss of experiential truth.

Of course this is true for everyone, not just Di.



I think any definition, explanation, or downright existence of God must necessarily be circular or all-inclusive in some way. The idea of God being a separate independent being can only result in passing the buck of explanation. We can’t explain our existence, so we imagine an inexplicable God who can.

That really is the epitome of hilariousness if one stops to think about it. It answers nothing, it just passes the buck. It’s nothing more than saying, “Well, I can’t figure it out so there must be some other entity who can” That line of thinking is really just a refusal to accept that something just might not be knowable.

In any case, I’ve enjoyed participating in this thread immensely, this has been one of the more intellectually rewarding conversations on the forums.

Di said:



I have to agree and disagree with the notion of communication requiring physical interpretation. The 'material' includes the physical, of course. Communication between people is not equal to communication within one regarding one's self. Both, interpersonal communication and innercommunication of 'self' could be lacking in effectiveness at times.

I, for one, tend to only communicate a small part of the thought or thought process within my use while in the midst of interpersonal communication, which some may call a personality 'flaw'. My reasoning differs considerably.

One who has lost all 'nerve' to offense... one who can walk and know... one who has shed the world's fingerprint by recognition and acceptance of the desire of 'essence' has no buttons to push, by disabling without a conceptual definition.

We do our best to describe that which is far beyond the capacity of words. It always falls short of that which inspires the effort. It always will, should inspiration be from 'essence'.





I feel that human knowledge inherently lacks the 'dimensional perspective' of that which one has not perceived...'God'.



No Di... we have not all came to the determination that we must be able to communicate everything... I have not. There are some things which cannot be 'taught'. They must be 'learned' through one's own understanding of 'self'.

Maturity of the recognition concerning 'essence' within.

When one does an inner internal review, what is truly being measured? Action, intent, means, reason, cause, effect,...and why? The subject of review may be initiated by physical action(s) and/or perspective...

If the review is of the world's fingerprint while still looking at itself through it's distortion, the review is of the conscience of ego, the sum of one's internalization. It is incurruptible, and will always fail in terms of genuine validity.

That is what dimensional perspective is not...






Understanding of 'essence' lies only within and it has no relative value outside of one's self, it is an extension of the unknown... Communication does not equate to understanding or recognition of 'essence' it lacks dimensional perspective. The conundrum is in understanding. We communicate misunderstanding quite well.If one has any buttons that another can still push... one has not succeeded in a complete understanding.

If one confines and paints a box, thereby giving it a 'name', essence is replaced with a conceptual human (mis)understanding... they are not one in the same.






I have no expectations of 'God'... only of myself.

Di you have asked me what 'creation' is...

In the most direct explanation I have... from my own point of view... my own perspective reality...

Creation equals extension of 'essence'...