Considering we don't even share a concept of "concept", that it's not obvious is obvious.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God as a Mental concept
- Thread starter nonbeliever_92
- Start date
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
As wittily aphoristic and unhelpful as usual.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
But they are. In fact, they fit nicely in one skull.
The mounds of scientific data are but models developed from patterns of sensory data that are observed through enhancements and learned secondhand. God can be that way, too, but can also be experienced through emotion and imagination.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
All things that are defined and discussed are imprisoned in names and definitions. The true, eternal, and real is that which is experienced personally.
From Wordsworth: "We murder to dissect."
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Does anyone disagree that god makes much more sense as a mental aspect rather than a physical being or force.
There are people who'd like to compare god to love, yet insist that he is like love. Whenever I try to explain that love is just a mental concept and not an actual physical thing, people usually just say "Oh you just don't understand" which I don't disagree with, but I wish they would help me understand by giving me a clear definition of god. it's really quite frustrating
Anyway, does anyone else believe that god makes perfect sense as a conceptual idea and much less sense in the aspects of actually existing?
Let me think about this... If God is as they say "love", what is love? I see love as being a state of consciousness. Love as a conscious state or emotional feeling as we know exists. Therefore, is it not possible that God is an existing state of consciousness also? In a sense, God exists, but only for those who feel that same type of "love" for God. Don't know if that makes sense or not.
Last edited:
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
The bulk of your counter argument falls under the category of "mystery". "I"m sure he has good reasons for all of this, we just don't know what they are."
So, to be clear here, you are underwhelmed by the force of this argument because while it seems compelling it is actually wrong and the reason why it is wrong is a mystery we cannot know.
You know, I'm thinking of the word "underwhelming" as well, but for different reasons...
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
OHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks for the clarification.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Clearly some of us are not pleased with the way God's handling it. To them I simply say that creating and running a universe with free creatures is no simple task, and it's not obvious to me that the gerrymanders I -- or anyone else -- would make to the world would cause more harm than good.
"No simple task"???
For an omni everything being ALL tasks are not simple - they aren't even "tasks."
This entire argument is nothing but a failed attempt to apologize for a nonsense belief that has zero intellectual support.
"Underwhelming" indeed.:yes:
"No simple task"???
For an omni everything being ALL tasks are not simple - they aren't even "tasks."
This entire argument is nothing but a failed attempt to apologize for a nonsense belief that has zero intellectual support.
"Underwhelming" indeed.:yes:
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
This entire argument is nothing but a failed attempt to apologize for a nonsense belief that has zero intellectual support.
At least it doesn't appeal to unwarranted assumptions, unlike the so-called "problem".
Zorro1227
Active Member
Does anyone disagree that god makes much more sense as a mental aspect rather than a physical being or force.
There are people who'd like to compare god to love, yet insist that he is like love. Whenever I try to explain that love is just a mental concept and not an actual physical thing, people usually just say "Oh you just don't understand" which I don't disagree with, but I wish they would help me understand by giving me a clear definition of god. it's really quite frustrating
Anyway, does anyone else believe that god makes perfect sense as a conceptual idea and much less sense in the aspects of actually existing?
I agree with you that God does make sense as a mental aspect. I grew up in a Christian home and I now struggle with the concept of God and Jesus. I have asked many believers this same question and I have received all the same answers. The one answer I have the hardest time with is, "If you don't believe, you won't understand." So to believe is to understand? That does not make sense to me.
I always viewed God as air. It's there, I can't see it, and air is an actually physical thing. It keeps us alive, it moves the leaves when it blows, etc. If God affects people the way that christians believe He does, then He is in a way like air.
Idk maybe this is a stupid example but it's the only thing that makes sense to me. Hope this helped.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, faith is like any state of mind. The only way to truly understand it is from the inside. That said, far too many believers use it as a cop-out.
Zorro1227
Active Member
Well, faith is like any state of mind. The only way to truly understand it is from the inside. That said, far too many believers use it as a cop-out.
Yeah I view it as a cop-out.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Only if they don't try. Words can only take it so far, but we have to try.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
"So called" problem? Are you serious???? Listen, I don't know what to tell you. This "so called" problem has been taken seriously by nearly every prominent Christian theologian who has ever lived. Aquinas, Augistine, Boethius... I can see that you personally do not think theodicy is worthy of discussion, but I'm not sure what credibility you have to dismiss it outright.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Quite. The problem is mostly illusory, much of its strength coming from the unwarranted assumption that a wise, loving, powerful god couldn't possibly have a reason for permitting the amount and degree of suffering that exists. A lot of ink has been spilled on the problem because both sides to the conversation have bought into the unwarranted assumption. Thus the atheist has demanded these reasons, and the Christians have offered various possibilities, all of which the atheist rejects. Quite a productive endeavour, yes? But why accept the unwarranted assumption? Perhaps our actual epistemic situation is parallel to the case of a child who suffers terrible pain because his father insists on providing him necessary but painful medical treatments that cause it. The child may be too immature to understand what is going on, but that doesn't mean that there's no reason for the suffering.
Honestly, I think that what gives the so-called argument its force is the fact that we cannot conceive of an answer to the question why God would permit the suffering we see. It's a "so-called" argument because it's not really an argument. Instead, it's the plaintive cry of a humanity in pain. Of course, that doesn't minimize the pain. The pain is real. So is the desire for an answer to the question. I'm simply not satisfied, though, that we have the materials here for a sound atheological argument.
From a Christian perspective, the question isn't how evil is possible with a wise, powerful, all-knowing God. Rather, the question is what God is doing about it. If he's sitting on his laurels, then perhaps we've got an argument for a kind of rebellious monotheism, but not atheism. But the Christian story contends that God has dealt and is dealing and will deal with sin and its consequences, including suffering. He has made covenants and kept (and is keeping) his side of them. His promises to deal with, eliminate, and compensate for sin are being worked through. It's this faithfulness to his covenants that provides the believer with confidence that, despite appearances to the contrary (and often, appearances are very much to the contrary), sin will not have the final word. For details, consult the old and new testaments.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
"It's this faithfulness to his covenants that provides the believer with confidence that, despite appearances to the contrary (and often, appearances are very much to the contrary), sin will not have the final word. For details, consult the old and new testaments."
This is even LESS effective than the previous apology.
'It ain't a problem cause I don't see it as a problem and my favorite book of fables agrees.'
That doesn't rise to the level of underwhelming.
As for the child analogy you ain't God. You can't make your child or pet understand. God could wave his magic god wand (original issue often imitated never duplicated) wave it and we would ALL understand this paradox.
It either can't or it won't.
If it can't it ain't god.
If it won't why give a good F* what it thinks? It clearly won't lift its little finger for us.
As for the "I'm working it" defense - big fracking deal. Its an omni everything being. Don't talk about it. Just DO it.
This is even LESS effective than the previous apology.
'It ain't a problem cause I don't see it as a problem and my favorite book of fables agrees.'
That doesn't rise to the level of underwhelming.
As for the child analogy you ain't God. You can't make your child or pet understand. God could wave his magic god wand (original issue often imitated never duplicated) wave it and we would ALL understand this paradox.
It either can't or it won't.
If it can't it ain't god.
If it won't why give a good F* what it thinks? It clearly won't lift its little finger for us.
As for the "I'm working it" defense - big fracking deal. Its an omni everything being. Don't talk about it. Just DO it.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
So are you saying that god is not something physical? It has not been shown that something that exists only in our mind can directly affect the physical nature of things around us. Idk if that makes any sense to anyone, but i'm sticking to it.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Whatever God is (if anything at all) is not something physical, but can cause the physical formation of things. I tend to look at things this way... How could energy (anything) move around and vibrate and change physical form if there is no conscious intent behind it? If energy was not conscious, there would be no movement or change at all, no life at all, everything would just be still or not exist at all. Therefore I do not believe that consciousness is something that exists only in our minds. I believe that consciousness exists in all things, but each thing possessing it's own level of awareness. Our own consciousness can and does affect our physical bodies. How can it not? If God is a part of that which is the conscious nature of things, then yes, God did cause the formation of the universe and God, as they say, exists everywhere and in all things and is infinite. For it was the conscious nature of the first atom that ever existed that caused it to be animate and active and expand into all of what is now. Read Marx Planck's statement and see what he has to say about it. He obviously knew there was something else to the picture.
Last edited:
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Conciousness is more than just energy, it's the medium and the form of the medium as well.