Assigning Human Qualities to God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While this was directed at Salix, I think Anatheism is a good word to describe it. It's derived from the Greek ana and theos meaning ‘above or beyond God’, as opposed to atheism (literally 'without God', whereas ana is about going beyond it but not rejecting it).

Meister Eckhart is recorded as having famously said: “God wants us to know one thing, that there is no ‘god’” and "Let us pray to God that we may be free of God".

Sorry, but that sounds like a load of self-contradictory nonsense.

The reason for this 'anatheism' is that the apophatic mystics distinguished the eternal and "super-essential" mode of being - conventionally called, in ordinary parlance, 'God' - from conditioned existence (because it is 'unconditioned Being' and created things are conditioned).

Why would you ever use the term "God" to refer to a "mode of being"?

When Socrates spoke in the Platonic Dialogues of "the God", he was referring to another philosophical conception about the ground of existence, quite distinct in his mind from his references to "gods" such as Zeus or Saturn, with their humanlike qualities.

On the contrary, since every concept or image we could form in our minds of this Being is derived, by analogy, from 'conditioned things' - it's really impossible for any creature to properly conceive of the divine essence as It is or would be in and to Itself.

But the 'belief' (in all forms of theism and deism, even those of the Ignostic or Anatheist variety) remains, nonetheless, that such an eternal, unconditioned and illimitable mode of 'supreme being' - even though it is far beyond the ken of our homo sapien intellect, supremely 'alien' to us - is still necessary for explaining why there is something rather than nothing, indeed why we have a conditioned and transient cosmos at all.

I generally see ignosticism as a subset of atheism: someone who doesn't believe God can be conceived at all certainly wouldn't conceive of God as real.

The rest of what you're saying also strikes me as contradictory nonsense: "I can't tell you anything at all about God, but I can tell you it's the reason for everything. How could this be the case? I can't say. How do I know? I can't say. But despite having ruled out any possible rational basis for my position, I'm still going to hold it."

 

[74x12]

Do you assign human qualities to God? Why?

I believe God assigned himself human qualities first. But it was for us.

Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks? Does God have a brain? Because last I checked, one needs a brain to think.

He may not think like you or I. I believe He thinks like how the wind moves. Imagine that even though the atmosphere is basically omnipresent around the world; yet the wind(air molecules of the atmosphere) blows here or there. Because God already knows everything. His consciousness is infinite so He doesn't think to ponder or to know. But feelings are directed by truth.

The flame becomes whatever it is currently burning and that's how we are with the brain but we'll still be there when it's gone.

God wants? Why do you assume God has desire?

Because we exist. God had to have a reason. That implies desire. It's ultimately self fulfillment, self expression. But if you understood what God was then you wouldn't call that selfish.

God gets angry? Anger is a product of ego. Why do you assume God has an ego?

The anger of God is more like a chemical reaction in my opinion.

Is it not plausible that God has none of these human qualities? Is it not possible that God just is?

I believe we are like God in some ways because God made us in his image. But so far from God in our thoughts we don't know him anymore. We forgot what God looks like so we aren't in harmony with God's desire.

 

[Quagmire]

If God is all things it would follow that He's all the things that we are.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I really think of it as more of a ' force ' than a personality .. greater than a mere personality

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is all things it would follow that He's all the things that we are.

He is, but He is more than what we are since God has no limitations.

 

[blü 2]

Do you assign human qualities to God? Why?

Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks? Does God have a brain? Because last I checked, one needs a brain to think.

God wants? Why do you assume God has desire?

God gets angry? Anger is a product of ego. Why do you assume God has an ego?

I could go on all day about statements I've heard where people assign such human qualities to God.

Is it not plausible that God has none of these human qualities? Is it not possible that God just is?

So, you say, not thought. Not desire. Not anger, nor, by corollary, love.

Then if we take Genesis seriously, what part of humans is "in God's image"?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, this is parmArtha. Within parmArtha also, Brahman' has "ananta kalyAN guNa" (infinite divine qualities of all-auspicious goodness) in dormant form.
Otherwise how can SaguN come from NirguN (while at the same time remaining NirguN)?
Whether you call it mAyA or not, the pure-saguN is dormant in nirguN.

We can stay (abide) in parmArtha, that is great and good for you if you do! but we are simultaneously saguN in potential form.
OR
Brahman' has the potential to be saguN. When this potential reveals itself, that is when we can see the divine qualities.

Per Advaita Vedanta, it is Maya that gives Brahman the potential to appear as Saguna. Saguna Brahman appears only in vyavaharika.

You say that Brahman, in Paramartika, has "infinite divine qualities of all-auspicious goodness." In Paramartika, there is only Nirguna Brahman. Nirguna means without qualities/formless. Such qualities as "goodness" are human concepts (I can't think of another earthly creature that as a concept of "good" than humans), and exist only in vyavaharika. Brahman, in Paramartika is satcitananda. Pure being. No qualities.

 

[Starlight]

God as I know him is not totally omnipotent and his hands are tied in some areas and he isn't that bad.

The God of the Bible is terrible with redeeming qualities

If you believe the abrahamic God is so terrible, then why do you identify as roman catholic?

 

[SalixIncendium]

While this was directed at Salix, I think Anatheism is a good word to describe it. It's derived from the Greek ana and theos meaning ‘above or beyond God’, as opposed to atheism (literally 'without God', whereas ana is about going beyond it but not rejecting it).

Meister Eckhart is recorded as having famously said: “God wants us to know one thing, that there is no ‘god’” and "Let us pray to God that we may be free of God".

The reason for this 'anatheism' is that the apophatic mystics distinguished the eternal and "super-essential" mode of being - conventionally called, in ordinary parlance, 'God' - from conditioned existence (because it is 'unconditioned Being' and created things are conditioned).

When Socrates spoke in the Platonic Dialogues of "the God", he was referring to another philosophical conception about the ground of existence, quite distinct in his mind from his references to "gods" such as Zeus or Saturn, with their humanlike qualities.

On the contrary, since every concept or image we could form in our minds of this Being is derived, by analogy, from 'conditioned things' - it's really impossible for any creature to properly conceive of the divine essence as It is or would be in and to Itself.

But the 'belief' (in all forms of theism and deism, even those of the Ignostic or Anatheist variety) remains, nonetheless, that such an eternal, unconditioned and illimitable mode of 'supreme being' - even though it is far beyond the ken of our homo sapien intellect, supremely 'alien' to us - is still necessary for explaining why there is something rather than nothing, indeed why we have a conditioned and transient cosmos at all.

Great post.

This is also known as transtheism.

 

[Vouthon]

Why would you ever use the term "God" to refer to a "mode of being"?

That is the exact wording that many of the medieval scholastics used. To understand the import of that claim, it is important to understand what a "mode" is in this context (i.e. I'm not talking about "modalism").

Boethius contrasts God's timeless 'mode' of being with a temporal mode. To be his own subsisting existence is the proper "mode" of God alone, because He is his own explanation, His own act of existing.

That's what I was saying in that instance. Pretty standard definition.

The rest of what you're saying also strikes me as contradictory nonsense: "I can't tell you anything at all about God, but I can tell you it's the reason for everything. How could this be the case? I can't say. How do I know? I can't say. But despite having ruled out any possible rational basis for my position, I'm still going to hold it."

It is to say that one can only define God by what He "isn't" (not made, not conditioned, not changeable, not originated, not become), not that one cannot saying anything at all. Negation is itself still defining Him, albeit by what He isn't.

"All the major theistic traditions insist at some point that our language about God consists mostly in conceptual restrictions and fruitful negations. “Cataphatic” (or affirmative) theology must always be chastened and corrected by “apophatic” (or negative) theology. We cannot speak of God in his own nature directly, but only at best analogously, and even then only in such a way that the conceptual content of our analogies consists largely in our knowledge of all the things that God is not." (David Bentley Hart)

The simple, underlying logic is that in contradistinction to a conditioned phenomenal existence, there must exist a non-conditioned, eternal and unchanging existence that self-subsists as its own explanation and provides a context for understanding why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

And you consider "Nirguna Brahman" to be God?

I'm not a fan of the term "God," but for all intents and purposes, yes.

Your link suggests to me that Nirguna Brahman can't be conceived and has no attributes. Is this correct?

That is correct from the perspective of transactional reality, yes.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If God is all things it would follow that He's all the things that we are.

Inasmuch as you are your pancreas.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So, you say, not thought. Not desire. Not anger, nor, by corollary, love.

Then if we take Genesis seriously, what part of humans is "in God's image"?

The Bible is not relevant to my paradigm. This would likely be better answered by an Abrahamic.

That said, "image" is a representation. It doesn't necessarily mean having the same qualities. If it did, wouldn't that make humans divine in nature? Deities?

 

[blü 2]

The Bible is not relevant to my paradigm. This would likely be better answered by an Abrahamic.

That said, "image" is a representation. It doesn't necessarily mean having the same qualities. If it did, wouldn't that make humans divine in nature? Deities?

This is the heart of the matter ─ what real entity do we intend to denote when we say 'God'?

And the answer is, none.

Thus there's no definition, no description, of 'God' appropriate to a real being, one that has objective existence, one that exists in the world external to the self.

Whereas if God were real, then there'd be such a definition, such a description, such that if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether it was God or not.

There isn't even a coherent definition of 'godness', the quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time and so on would lack.

Gods exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

All the evidence says so.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This is the heart of the matter ─ what real entity do we intend to denote when we say 'God'?

And the answer is, none.

Thus there's no definition, no description, of 'God' appropriate to a real being, one that has objective existence, one that exists in the world external to the self.

Whereas if God were real, then there'd be such a definition, such a description, such that if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether it was God or not.

There isn't even a coherent definition of 'godness', the quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time and so on would lack.

Gods exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

All the evidence says so.

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Moving forward, I would appreciate if you didn't include me in your personal "truths." You have not shared in my experiences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not a fan of the term "God," but for all intents and purposes, yes.

It's the term you used in the OP. *shrug*

That is correct from the perspective of transactional reality, yes.

Then that leads to a problem.

When we say that we believe in something, what we generally mean is that the concept of a thing that we have in our mind is reflected in reality.

However, if something is inconceivable, then, well, there can't be a concept of the thing. This means that the thing can't be believed in.

Because of this, any time someone tells me that they believe in something inconceivable, I conclude that either:

- the thing they actually believe in isn't really the thing they say they believe in, or

- the thing they believe in isn't actually that inconceivable.

Either way, there's some confused thinking going on.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Hi, Namaste @SalixIncendium ,
I really don't want to argue with you, just want to explain what I wrote.

Before that, just 2 points:
1. Arguing from the paramArtha platform that there are no divine qualities observed in vyavahAr is N/A or a moot point.
2. You are free to stay in paramArtha forever, I love parmArtha myself.
That does not negate the ontological existence of this universe, nor does it negate simultaneous omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence.

Per Advaita Vedanta, it is Maya that gives Brahman the potential to appear as Saguna. Saguna Brahman appears only in vyavaharika.

So you acknowledge that SaguNa Brahman does appear in vyAvahArika satya.
(Between parmArtha and vyavahAr lies Leela.)

You say that Brahman, in Paramartika, has "infinite divine qualities of all-auspicious goodness."

Please read what I said -- please note the highlighted words in blue:

Yes, this is parmArtha. Within parmArtha also, Brahman' has "ananta kalyAN guNa" (infinite divine qualities of all-auspicious goodness) in dormant form.
Otherwise how can SaguN come from NirguN (while at the same time remaining NirguN)?
Whether you call it mAyA or not, the pure-saguN is dormant in nirguN.

That means the potential for saguN exists in dormant form in the NirguN. Had that not been the case there would have been no vyavahAr , mAyA or universe.

In Paramartika, there is only Nirguna Brahman. Nirguna means without qualities/formless.

Of Course. I am aware of that. I myself love the parmArtha. However, I was asking you to see outside the box:

1. If you were only, strictly in parmArtha you would not be posting here.

2. Ishwar is in parmArtha, Leela and vyavahAr at once, in parallel, simultaneously.

3. Ishwar is the collective of devas and daivi beings, including sAttvic beings in human form.

.When help arrives at natural disaster locations, countries collaborate to make the Corona vaccine,
when our Solar System is working perfectly,
when stars form and die,
when angels and Devas look over and bless mortal beings,
when millions pray / praise God (Parameshwar)

that is Ishwar, Parameshwar in action.

Such qualities as "goodness" are human concepts (I can't think of another earthly creature that as a concept of "good" than humans), and exist only in vyavaharika. Brahman, in Paramartika is satcitananda. Pure being. No qualities.

Animals also have concepts of "good", so also beings on other planets, ETs, godly spirits, angels, divine beings have this concept.

So you are essentially an atheist and saying that Parameshwar has no role to play in vyavahAr mode, or rather that there is no Parameshwar at all - It is all just poetry. (although poetry came from Brahman)
You are essentially saying your Natraj is fake. Brahman' is not VishNu, Mahesh and Devi, or Jehovah, Allah

See point 3 above. We all contribute to Ishwar. If you help a cause today, that is Ishwar working. VAsudeva sarvaM iti
Advaita has to be accepted at all levels.
You meditated in the morning and were ONLY doing parmArtha by going into samAdhi for half an hour. Then you went to work and worked, while abiding in the sat-chit-ananda. Why?
You are simultaneously in parmArtha and vyavahAr, untouched by the vyavahAr.
Devotees are simultaneously in parmArtha, leela and vyavahAr when not in samAdhi or bhajan.

Adi ShankarAchArya wrote GovindAshTak:
satyam jnAnam anantaM nityam anAkAsham paramAkAsham |
(truth, knowledge, infinite, eternal, beyond space, the highest omnipresent ether)
The very next line he wrote:
goshTa prAngaNalingaNalolam anAyAsam paramAyAsaM !
... Govindam paramAnandam!
(That very Truth crawls into the cow shed, rolls in the dust, gets covered in the dust much to the dismay of Mother Yashoda (Oh no! I have to give Him a bath all over again). That Truth is [Baby] Govinda (Krishna), the highest Ananda, and source of our Ananda)

Brahman' has the potential to be saguN. When this potential reveals itself thru' this existence, that is when the divine qualities can be seen.

I would add not just the qualities, but the effects. Effects of prayer. Divinity cannot be missed, it pervades all of us.

 

[PureX]

Do you assign human qualities to God? Why?

Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks? Does God have a brain? Because last I checked, one needs a brain to think.

God wants? Why do you assume God has desire?

God gets angry? Anger is a product of ego. Why do you assume God has an ego?

I could go on all day about statements I've heard where people assign such human qualities to God.

Is it not plausible that God has none of these human qualities? Is it not possible that God just is?

I think that for most humans, "God" is the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And we humans don't like existential mysteries, much, because we survive and thrive by knowing our circumstances well enough to control them, or at least control ourselves in relation to them. So this most fundamental mystery of the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is presents us with a profound problem: a very big unknown. And a very unresolvable one. Which leaves us feeling very vulnerable to it.

So we seek a way of making this profoundly uncomfortable mystery more tenable. We seek some way, even if illusory, of rendering this great mystery interactive, so that we may gain some sense of control in relation to it. And this is why we very often endow this great mystery, in our minds, with human characteristics. So that we can feel that we can "understand" it, somewhat, and perhaps manipulate it as we can understand and manipulate each other.

It's a very naturally human thing to do even if it is illusory. And so a great many humans are still doing it, and will very likely continue to do it for a long time into the future.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you assign human qualities to God? Why?
Is it not presumptuous to assume God thinks? Does God have a brain? Because last I checked, one needs a brain to think.
God wants? Why do you assume God has desire?
God gets angry? Anger is a product of ego. Why do you assume God has an ego?
I could go on all day about statements I've heard where people assign such human qualities to God.

Is it not plausible that God has none of these human qualities? Is it not possible that God just is?

What does one have left if he removes qualities like conscious thought, memories, feelings, preferences, desires, and volition from one's god? If one removes those qualities from one's god concept, he is left with the unconscious laws of nature. They also 'just are,' but without personhood, so why call that God?

Projecting a ghost into the machine seems like a pretty pervasive human activity, albeit not universal. People seem to have difficulty looking at the world moving and changing around them in terms other than a personality underlying it all. Sure, that might be the case, but it also might not be.

That difficulty is likely a result of the evolutionary strategy that imputes agency to many phenomena found in much of the animal kingdom, as when a deer hears rustling leaves and runs. Nature chooses animals that impute agency to such phenomena over those that don't. The cockroach doesn't know if the shadow just cast over it was due to a potential predator or a cloud, but the ones that run will outlive and out-reproduce the ones that don't.

Fast forward hundreds of millions of years to early man offering sacrifices to the thunder. Same thing as the cockroach and deer, except in the hands of man, it becomes the beginnings of religion and propitiation rituals.

 

[ameyAtmA]

A major point that gets missed very often is the divinity in us as a collective -- "us" does not mean humans. It means humans, ETs, angels, gods, even intelligent dogs and dolphins, plus the highest consciousness variations - VishNu-principle, Shiv-principle, God-consciousness, Krishna-Consciousness.

Rather than us being humans, we are spirit in human form or having a human form.
Rather than insentient human bodies being animated by a brain and projecting petty emotions on God, it is the other way around - we in our highest divine consciousness, are part of God.

The imprint of our consciousness is what created the human body.
If we want, divinity can radiate through us. That was not cooked up, but it is embedded in our DNA because it came from our Source.