The Concept of God

Willamena · Oct 12, 2012

The "concept" was first outlined by John Locke as the "general idea" of a thing, for which we abstract a generalization from a large sampling of particulars. While equating things that are essentially different, we ignore the distinctions and abstract a greater whole. While no two leafs are the same, we can address a 'leaf' and communicate a necessary idea about the world.

Does a "concept of god" make sense? Does it make any less sense than the concept of a leaf?

sandandfoam · Oct 12, 2012

It makes sense to me. No less than a leaf.

Anatta · Oct 12, 2012

Doesn't this depend on what you mean by "god"?

The Judeo-Xian concept of an eternal creator-of-everything doesn't make any sense to me, because if a being created everything that exists, it would have necessarily had to create itself as well. Unless you posit some universe "external" and prior to ours where the process of creation took place, but then this means that the creator couldn't have created everything...

It's turtles all the way down.

Willamena · Oct 12, 2012

Anatta said:
Doesn't this depend on what you mean by "god"?

The Judeo-Xian concept of an eternal creator-of-everything doesn't make any sense to me, because if a being created everything that exists, it would have necessarily had to create itself as well. Unless you posit some universe "external" and prior to ours where the process of creation took place, but then this means that the creator couldn't have created everything...

It's turtles all the way down.

Does the oroborous make any sense to you? That is the creation that creates itself. It is often discussed along with the Tao.

Anatta · Oct 12, 2012

Willamena said:
Does the oroborous make any sense to you? That is the creation that creates itself. It is often discussed along with the Tao.

This seems more like a symbolic way of acknowledging the ongoing act of existence itself, like the Yin and Yang. I don't think I would call this "god".

Willamena · Oct 12, 2012

Anatta said:
This seems more like a symbolic way of acknowledging the ongoing act of existence itself, like the Yin and Yang. I don't think I would call this "god".

Fair enough. But then, what would you call "god"?

Tarheeler · Oct 12, 2012

Willamena said:
Does a "concept of god" make sense? Does it make any less sense than the concept of a leaf?

I don't think there is going to be enough agreement for a general "god" concept to be feasible; it can mean so many different things.

In order for a concept to be effective there has to be consensus on what is being described.

Anatta · Oct 12, 2012

Willamena said:
Fair enough. But then, what would you call "god"?

Because of the culture which has surrounded me since my birth, the thing I tend to think of is the Abrahamic idea of an omnipotent entity, which then doesn't make sense to me in terms of logic.

On the other hand, the pantheons of other religions often seem filled with so many slightly supernatural people, mucking about in their own pit of stress and despair and acting out of anger, jealousy, greed, etc... except instead of throwing chairs, they throw lightning bolts or disease.

I really think there is no concept of "god" which I could find plausible, or even comprehensible. All existing gods are either too petty to really be "gods", or too abstract and nonsensical to consider.

Willamena · Oct 12, 2012

Tarheeler said:
I don't think there is going to be enough agreement for a general "god" concept to be feasible; it can mean so many different things.

In order for a concept to be effective there has to be consensus on what is being described.

It may not be agreed upon or effective for some purposes, but just to be a concept it doesn't require agreement: one person can form a concept.

The question is about whether it can make sense, not whether it's generally useful. So what do you think?

Cassiopia · Oct 12, 2012

Willamena said:
The "concept" was first outlined by John Locke as the "general idea" of a thing, for which we abstract a generalization from a large sampling of particulars. While equating things that are essentially different, we ignore the distinctions and abstract a greater whole. While no two leafs are the same, we can address a 'leaf' and communicate a necessary idea about the world.

Does a "concept of god" make sense? Does it make any less sense than the concept of a leaf?

I think all people on this forum would have a similar idea of what a leaf is. However I think a lot of the posters here will have quite different ideas about the concept of God.
Therefore I am beginning to think the concept has no universal meaning or use.

Tarheeler · Oct 12, 2012

Willamena said:
It may not be agreed upon or effective for some purposes, but just to be a concept it doesn't require agreement: one person can form a concept.

The question is about whether it can make sense, not whether it's generally useful. So what do you think?

I think it can make sense on a personal level as how we understand god.

I think it does not make sense in a more general sense as how we communicate that understanding to others.

Willamena · Oct 12, 2012

Tarheeler said:
I think it can make sense on a personal level as how we understand god.

I think it does not make sense in a more general sense as how we communicate that understanding to others.

Hmm. Okay, but that's the way in which it has to make sense. We use concepts to avoid addressing a particular and still make a statement about a thing.

Can we make no statements about "god"?

Willamena · Oct 12, 2012

Cassiopia said:
I think all people on this forum would have a similar idea of what a leaf is. However I think a lot of the posters here will have quite different ideas about the concept of God.
Therefore I am beginning to think the concept has no universal meaning or use.

Does anything have a universal meaning?

Tarheeler · Oct 12, 2012

Willamena said:
Hmm. Okay, but that's the way in which it has to make sense. We use concepts to avoid addressing a particular and still make a statement about a thing.

Can we make no statements about "god"?

I stated in my first post that using a concept to communicate with others requires agreement as to what that concept means. Without that, our personal concept is basically useless.

And we can make all kinds of specific statements about "god" and how we understand it. We just aren't going to be able to effectively use general ideas unless we have already reached an agreement on them.

Willamena · Oct 12, 2012

Tarheeler said:
I stated in my first post that using a concept to communicate with others requires agreement as to what that concept means. Without that, our personal concept is basically useless.

And we can make all kinds of specific statements about "god" and how we understand it. We just aren't going to be able to effectively use general ideas unless we have already reached an agreement on them.

Alright, I see.

idav · Oct 12, 2012

Willamena said:
Does anything have a universal meaning?

Sure, we just can't ever agree on how to label it especially for more ambiguous terms. Take love for example. I see those threads going on forever just trying to agree on which definition to use. Then there is the common response "god is love", ambiguity on top of more ambiguity.

RichW · Oct 13, 2012

Willamena said:
Does the ouroborous make any sense to you? That is the creation that creates itself. It is often discussed along with the Tao.

oroborous makes a lot of sense to me.

The serpent in a circle represents a "whole" or infinity.

The serpernt as a "sine" is existential perception of linear time.

If there is any code or key to understanding the esoteric properties of anything, this is it.

Biblical belief breaks down in linear time to me as (beast into god) with "infinity" an operative whole.

The long theorized "mark" of the beast is simply upon anyone who doesnt' undstand the code.

Many systems use this psychological tool upon the faithful as well as the "beasts".

The beasts are unworthy while the godly are entitled.

Any who understand this simple premise know the godly better than they know themselves in this important respect.

A bit humorous when the thought comes full circle in mind.

1137 · Oct 13, 2012

Anatta said:
This seems more like a symbolic way of acknowledging the ongoing act of existence itself, like the Yin and Yang. I don't think I would call this "god".

I agree.

Willamena said:
Fair enough. But then, what would you call "god"?

Something that has free will, is capable of anything, can interact with its creation if it so chooses, made a conscious choice to create the universe, deserves worship / sacrifice / etc...

Ben Dhyan · Oct 14, 2012

Concepts are mental constructs and as such symbolize the reality for which they are meant to represent. Now a bunch of neuron firings in the physical brain that involve time to represent something is clearly not that something, it's a label.

So the concept of God is really just a 'label' or 'signpost' meant for the listener/reader to conjure up their own brain derived mental construct to represent what they presently conceive God to be, therefore there are as many concepts of God as there are people who have thoughts one way or another about 'God'.

Now the real question is,...is there actually a 'REALITY' (forgive the fact that 'reality' is also a concept for expedience sake) that is represented by the concept 'God', but can't ever be known by the human mind since it is forever on the other side of the mind conceptualization by virtue of IT being not in space or time?

There is no meaningful conceptual answer to this question, but there may be an actual realization of IT according to mystics of all ages.

Willamena · Oct 14, 2012

ben d said:
Concepts are mental constructs and as such symbolize the reality for which they are meant to represent. Now a bunch of neuron firings in the physical brain that involve time to represent something is clearly not that something, it's a label.

So the concept of God is really just a 'label' or 'signpost' meant for the listener/reader to conjure up their own brain derived mental construct to represent what they presently conceive God to be, therefore there are as many concepts of God as there are people who have thoughts one way or another about 'God'.

Now the real question is,...is there actually a 'REALITY' (forgive the fact that 'reality' is also a concept for expedience sake) that is represented by the concept 'God', but can't ever be known by the human mind since it is forever on the other side of the mind conceptualization by virtue of IT being not in space or time?

There is no meaningful conceptual answer to this question, but there may be an actual realization of IT according to mystics of all ages.

Alright: in light of this, what would be your answer to the question in the OP? Taking the "concept of god" to be a generalization of all these labels that merely point at god, can a concept of god (in particular) really make sense?

The Concept of God

Just me

Veteran Member

Other

Just me

Other

Just me

Argumentative Curmudgeon

Other

Just me

Sugar and Spice

Argumentative Curmudgeon

Just me

Just me

Argumentative Curmudgeon

Just me

Being

New Member

Here until I storm off again

Veteran Member

Just me