Constructing the image of the hypothetical God

[Aegon]

For some reason I've been thinking about this recently. If there is a God, what depiction of him would make the most sense? I'm going to say that two would make the least sense: the Christian God as depicted in the OT and a Deist God.

To start, we're assuming a couple of things for the sake of the argument: that there is a God and that God has always existed. Since the concept of God in itself is illogical to me, it is difficult to assume things about him. It makes sense to me to assume things about him and his actions from what we know about ourselves. So...if we are to say that God then created the universe, we need to address a few things:

1. The purpose of actions
2. The value of life
3. The values that we possess and the values that God would possess 

1. Actions have purpose. We would never take any sort of action unless there was a purpose to it. When we voluntarily perform an action it is always to our benefit. It may not necessarily be something we want to do at that point in time, but we do it because it will have a positive effect on ourselves. Examples: I decided to lay in my bed because it is comfortable; I decided to write this post because it interests me; I woke up at 7 this morning so I could go to work and make money. This is how we know actions. It makes sense that we can apply this meaning of actions to God. The creation of the universe is an action. Therefore God created the universe because creating it somehow benefited him.

2. What sort of value does life hold? More specifically: do we as a species hold value? Are we more valuable than other animals? Than trees? I'd argue that all life is valuable, but some life is more valuable than others. Not only do we feel and do, but we do freely and autonomously. We are unique in that regard. The fact that we have these abilities says something. In a universe where a God created the universe (including us), this means that we hold intrinsic value greater than any other living thing on this planet. God is supposedly a supreme being, so us evolving so highly could not be accident (or it would contradict what it means to be God.) Therefore God purposely created a universe where humans are the dominant species.

3. We as humans possess certain values. It is not natural for us just to try and survive, but rather to try and live a good life (a “good life” meaning a life from which we can derive pleasure.) A sane and rational human being can get pleasure from a number of things: sports, music, television, film, arguing on a forum with strangers. Pleasure from things such as the pain of others is sadism and is not something a sane and rational human being derives pleasure from. It could also be argued that we’re not satisfied with just witnessing these forms of pleasure. Such as with life, we don’t want to just experience these things, we want to master them. Now I’m not saying every person who listens to music wants to master an instrument (although I’m willing to bet the majority of music listeners either play an instrument or wishes they could.) I’m saying it’s in human nature to want to master at least one value. If you are musically inclined, you will want to attempt to master music by learning music as much as you can. If you are scientifically inclined you may want to attempt to master an area of science through school and studies. If you are physically inclined you may gravitate toward a physical profession in which you would try your best at (and in that you’d be attempting to master it.) The amount of examples is endless. There is at least one thing every person wants to “master.” My point here is that these forms of pleasure are not enough at face value. We want more. I said earlier that we have to base God off of what we already know. If we are this way, then we can apply this line of thinking to God. All we know is the universe, implying that God only has himself and our universe to fool around with. This would mean that it doesn’t make sense for God to create the universe and then leave it be. I established already that simply by creating the universe God was taking an action which benefited him. So how did it benefit him? He derives pleasure from it. And we are to model God after a sane and rational person (which means it wouldn’t make sense for him to be sadistic or evil.) This means that God finds entertainment in our universe, but simply creating it and leaving it be would be nonsensical; he’d want to be involved and he’d want to “master” what he derives pleasure from in the same manner that we do. Therefore God would be actively involved in the universe that he created.
 
What can we take from this line of thinking? That, if God exists, he:
-Created the universe as a source of entertainment
-Created a universe in which we are the supreme species / “stars” of his entertainment
-Cannot be evil / sadistic
-Must be actively involved 

This logic eliminates the possibility of:
-God as depicted in the Old Testament (he is morally questionable bordering on evil)
-God as depicted by Deists (he was never and is not actively involved in our universe)

In the end, I still don’t think there’s a God, but if there were, this is probably what I’d believe. It makes the most sense to me. But this also could be a bunch of rambling. Tell me what you think. I’m probably wrong in a lot of ways. I'm no philosopher

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

t

1. Actions have purpose. We would never take any sort of action unless there was a purpose to it. When we voluntarily perform an action it is always to our benefit. It may not necessarily be something we want to do at that point in time, but we do it because it will have a positive effect on ourselves. Examples: I decided to lay in my bed because it is comfortable; I decided to write this post because it interests me; I woke up at 7 this morning so I could go to work and make money. This is how we know actions. It makes sense that we can apply this meaning of actions to God. The creation of the universe is an action. Therefore God created the universe because creating it somehow benefited him.

But actions are not necessarily to our benefit. Drug users inject heroin, suicidal people leap off of tall buildings. Even actions which benefit others may be inimical to our selves. Suppose I see you about to be run down by a cab and I push you out of the way. You get off without a scratch, whereas I am crippled for a life of unending pain.

But even stipulating that actions are beneficial, it doesn't make a lot of sense to apply human motivations to non-humans (in this case, God). There is a school of thought that the creation wasn't an 'action' on God's part, in was a necessary consequence of hi Being - God could no more not have created the universe than you or I could turn our autonomic nervous systems off and on at will. If this is the case, then God's creating the universe wasn't beneficial, it just...was.

2. What sort of value does life hold? More specifically: do we as a species hold value? Are we more valuable than other animals? Than trees? I'd argue that all life is valuable, but some life is more valuable than others. Not only do we feel and do, but we do freely and autonomously. We are unique in that regard. The fact that we have these abilities says something. In a universe where a God created the universe (including us), this means that we hold intrinsic value greater than any other living thing on this planet. God is supposedly a supreme being, so us evolving so highly could not be accident (or it would contradict what it means to be God.) Therefore God purposely created a universe where humans are the dominant species.

Not to be rude, but this is just one non sequitur on top of another. 1) You don't know that we are free and autonomous, or that other species are not. 2) Simply because (according to the argument) God created us, it does not follow that our value is greater than that of any other group of organisms. I can think of a dozen different ways in which a dozen different species are 'greater' than H. sapiens. 3) You don't know what other species are in the 'universe' so to say that we are dominant is just silly. Closer to hope, tread on a stonefish sometime and then tell me how 'dominant' you feel.

3. We as humans possess certain values. It is not natural for us just to try and survive, but rather to try and live a good life (a “good life” meaning a life from which we can derive pleasure.) A sane and rational human being can get pleasure from a number of things: sports, music, television, film, arguing on a forum with strangers. Pleasure from things such as the pain of others is sadism and is not something a sane and rational human being derives pleasure from. It could also be argued that we’re not satisfied with just witnessing these forms of pleasure. Such as with life, we don’t want to just experience these things, we want to master them. Now I’m not saying every person who listens to music wants to master an instrument (although I’m willing to bet the majority of music listeners either play an instrument or wishes they could.) I’m saying it’s in human nature to want to master at least one value. If you are musically inclined, you will want to attempt to master music by learning music as much as you can. If you are scientifically inclined you may want to attempt to master an area of science through school and studies. If you are physically inclined you may gravitate toward a physical profession in which you would try your best at (and in that you’d be attempting to master it.) The amount of examples is endless. There is at least one thing every person wants to “master.” My point here is that these forms of pleasure are not enough at face value. We want more. I said earlier that we have to base God off of what we already know. If we are this way, then we can apply this line of thinking to God. All we know is the universe, implying that God only has himself and our universe to fool around with. This would mean that it doesn’t make sense for God to create the universe and then leave it be. I established already that simply by creating the universe God was taking an action which benefited him. So how did it benefit him? He derives pleasure from it. And we are to model God after a sane and rational person (which means it wouldn’t make sense for him to be sadistic or evil.) This means that God finds entertainment in our universe, but simply creating it and leaving it be would be nonsensical; he’d want to be involved and he’d want to “master” what he derives pleasure from in the same manner that we do. Therefore God would be actively involved in the universe that he created.

Again, you can't base the actions, motives, or desires of an ineffable Being on those of humans (that's what 'ineffable means). Thus, there isn't any real reason to 'model God after a sane an rational person'. God could have created the universe because he likes to watch the effects of starvation, mutilation and disease on human beings. Equally plausibly, God may enjoy to caperings or microbes, bats, zebras or slime molds. Equally plausibly, the universe could be the metaphoric equivalent of a shit that God took on the side of the cosmic road - he left it behind and never thought about it again.

What can we take from this line of thinking? That, if God exists, he:
-Created the universe as a source of entertainment
-Created a universe in which we are the supreme species / “stars” of his entertainment
-Cannot be evil / sadistic
-Must be actively involved

Sorry, I can't see where you've demonstrated ANY of this.

Boru

[ApeNotKillApe]

1. Actions have purpose. We would never take any sort of action unless there was a purpose to it. When we voluntarily perform an action it is always to our benefit. It may not necessarily be something we want to do at that point in time, but we do it because it will have a positive effect on ourselves. Examples: I decided to lay in my bed because it is comfortable; I decided to write this post because it interests me; I woke up at 7 this morning so I could go to work and make money. This is how we know actions. It makes sense that we can apply this meaning of actions to God. The creation of the universe is an action. Therefore God created the universe because creating it somehow benefited him.

Actions have purpose? Since when? Does an atom drop into lower excited state with a purpose? I mean, humans often behave with purpose, sure, but to say they always do what's in their best interest is absurd. Have you ever heard of depression? Mental illness? Addiction? Self mutilation? Are you aware that people do really stupid things all the time, often on impulse? 
As an example, often when people drown in the sea, the reason they died is because they panicked, rather than remaining still, they thrashed around, exhausting and inadvertently killing themselves. As to how creating the universe as is benefited God, I can only assume this entity is a monster of unfathomable malevolence; the guy invented the very concept of suffering and put it into practice. 

2. What sort of value does life hold? More specifically: do we as a species hold value? Are we more valuable than other animals? Than trees? I'd argue that all life is valuable, but some life is more valuable than others. Not only do we feel and do, but we do freely and autonomously. We are unique in that regard. The fact that we have these abilities says something. In a universe where a God created the universe (including us), this means that we hold intrinsic value greater than any other living thing on this planet. God is supposedly a supreme being, so us evolving so highly could not be accident (or it would contradict what it means to be God.) Therefore God purposely created a universe where humans are the dominant species.

Bias, bias, a thousand times, bias. The cosmos does not share your notions of worth, "value" is a concept manifest only in the minds of bartering primates.
Humans are unique? Good for you. Cosmos doesn't care; the universe is incapable of giving a shit. On that note, "God" clearly doesn't value human life either, in some respects it holds particular contempt for the species. 

3. We as humans possess certain values. It is not natural for us just to try and survive, but rather to try and live a good life (a “good life” meaning a life from which we can derive pleasure.) A sane and rational human being can get pleasure from a number of things: sports, music, television, film, arguing on a forum with strangers. Pleasure from things such as the pain of others is sadism and is not something a sane and rational human being derives pleasure from. It could also be argued that we’re not satisfied with just witnessing these forms of pleasure. Such as with life, we don’t want to just experience these things, we want to master them. Now I’m not saying every person who listens to music wants to master an instrument (although I’m willing to bet the majority of music listeners either play an instrument or wishes they could.) I’m saying it’s in human nature to want to master at least one value. If you are musically inclined, you will want to attempt to master music by learning music as much as you can. If you are scientifically inclined you may want to attempt to master an area of science through school and studies. If you are physically inclined you may gravitate toward a physical profession in which you would try your best at (and in that you’d be attempting to master it.) The amount of examples is endless. There is at least one thing every person wants to “master.” My point here is that these forms of pleasure are not enough at face value. We want more. I said earlier that we have to base God off of what we already know. If we are this way, then we can apply this line of thinking to God. All we know is the universe, implying that God only has himself and our universe to fool around with. This would mean that it doesn’t make sense for God to create the universe and then leave it be. I established already that simply by creating the universe God was taking an action which benefited him. So how did it benefit him? He derives pleasure from it. And we are to model God after a sane and rational person (which means it wouldn’t make sense for him to be sadistic or evil.) This means that God finds entertainment in our universe, but simply creating it and leaving it be would be nonsensical; he’d want to be involved and he’d want to “master” what he derives pleasure from in the same manner that we do. Therefore God would be actively involved in the universe that he created.

Good thing you went and beat Aristotle at his own game and clarified exactly what constitutes a good life, otherwise all of this would read as a load of baseless assertions. On what authority do you constitute what is good? People used to burn their neighbors at the stake for entertainment and moral reinforcement, to this day there are entire communities that torture animals for fun. I don't even know what point you're trying to make. How does the fact that you can do things that are fulfilling and non-harmful speak to the benign nature of this hypothetical god? The people who enjoy causing harm and misery still exist, you know. You still have to account for their existence in God's universe too, in addition to all the unpleasant things that occur in nature that are not the result of human interaction.

[Aegon]

Alright so I have to admit that I was really stoned when I wrote the original post. But I guess I'll try and defend myself haha.

t

1. Actions have purpose. We would never take any sort of action unless there was a purpose to it. When we voluntarily perform an action it is always to our benefit. It may not necessarily be something we want to do at that point in time, but we do it because it will have a positive effect on ourselves. Examples: I decided to lay in my bed because it is comfortable; I decided to write this post because it interests me; I woke up at 7 this morning so I could go to work and make money. This is how we know actions. It makes sense that we can apply this meaning of actions to God. The creation of the universe is an action. Therefore God created the universe because creating it somehow benefited him.

But actions are not necessarily to our benefit. Drug users inject heroin, suicidal people leap off of tall buildings. Even actions which benefit others may be inimical to our selves. Suppose I see you about to be run down by a cab and I push you out of the way. You get off without a scratch, whereas I am crippled for a life of unending pain.

All those are also to their benefit. I know, drug addiction doesn't benefit a person. But the act of injecting heroin is beneficial to you at that point in time because you want the high. Suicidal people feel that jumping off the building would be beneficial to them at that point in time. You push someone out of the way of a cab because sacrificing your well-being for the sake of somebody else's is in your character and seeing them get off without a scratch is something you want, so yes that was also an act beneficial for you in a way.

But even stipulating that actions are beneficial, it doesn't make a lot of sense to apply human motivations to non-humans (in this case, God). There is a school of thought that the creation wasn't an 'action' on God's part, in was a necessary consequence of hi Being - God could no more not have created the universe than you or I could turn our autonomic nervous systems off and on at will. If this is the case, then God's creating the universe wasn't beneficial, it just...was.

I'd argue that it makes more sense than that. Basing his decisions off of something that we already knows makes sense to me. Besides, if he couldn't control his ability to make a universe then how could he be an all-powerful being?

2. What sort of value does life hold? More specifically: do we as a species hold value? Are we more valuable than other animals? Than trees? I'd argue that all life is valuable, but some life is more valuable than others. Not only do we feel and do, but we do freely and autonomously. We are unique in that regard. The fact that we have these abilities says something. In a universe where a God created the universe (including us), this means that we hold intrinsic value greater than any other living thing on this planet. God is supposedly a supreme being, so us evolving so highly could not be accident (or it would contradict what it means to be God.) Therefore God purposely created a universe where humans are the dominant species.

Not to be rude, but this is just one non sequitur on top of another. 1) You don't know that we are free and autonomous, or that other species are not. 2) Simply because (according to the argument) God created us, it does not follow that our value is greater than that of any other group of organisms. I can think of a dozen different ways in which a dozen different species are 'greater' than H. sapiens. 3) You don't know what other species are in the 'universe' so to say that we are dominant is just silly. Closer to hope, tread on a stonefish sometime and then tell me how 'dominant' you feel.

How do we not know that we are free and autonomous compared to other species? We can observe that pretty easily. You can think of different ways that other species are "greater" than us, but our abilities eclipse theirs. We have logos (as Aristotle maybe mentioned in something he wrote?) which makes us unique and above other social animals. Also I don't have to tread on a stonefish. We can just kill them from afar by spilling some oil.

3. We as humans possess certain values. It is not natural for us just to try and survive, but rather to try and live a good life (a “good life” meaning a life from which we can derive pleasure.) A sane and rational human being can get pleasure from a number of things: sports, music, television, film, arguing on a forum with strangers. Pleasure from things such as the pain of others is sadism and is not something a sane and rational human being derives pleasure from. It could also be argued that we’re not satisfied with just witnessing these forms of pleasure. Such as with life, we don’t want to just experience these things, we want to master them. Now I’m not saying every person who listens to music wants to master an instrument (although I’m willing to bet the majority of music listeners either play an instrument or wishes they could.) I’m saying it’s in human nature to want to master at least one value. If you are musically inclined, you will want to attempt to master music by learning music as much as you can. If you are scientifically inclined you may want to attempt to master an area of science through school and studies. If you are physically inclined you may gravitate toward a physical profession in which you would try your best at (and in that you’d be attempting to master it.) The amount of examples is endless. There is at least one thing every person wants to “master.” My point here is that these forms of pleasure are not enough at face value. We want more. I said earlier that we have to base God off of what we already know. If we are this way, then we can apply this line of thinking to God. All we know is the universe, implying that God only has himself and our universe to fool around with. This would mean that it doesn’t make sense for God to create the universe and then leave it be. I established already that simply by creating the universe God was taking an action which benefited him. So how did it benefit him? He derives pleasure from it. And we are to model God after a sane and rational person (which means it wouldn’t make sense for him to be sadistic or evil.) This means that God finds entertainment in our universe, but simply creating it and leaving it be would be nonsensical; he’d want to be involved and he’d want to “master” what he derives pleasure from in the same manner that we do. Therefore God would be actively involved in the universe that he created.

Again, you can't base the actions, motives, or desires of an ineffable Being on those of humans (that's what 'ineffable means). Thus, there isn't any real reason to 'model God after a sane an rational person'. God could have created the universe because he likes to watch the effects of starvation, mutilation and disease on human beings. Equally plausibly, God may enjoy to caperings or microbes, bats, zebras or slime molds. Equally plausibly, the universe could be the metaphoric equivalent of a shit that God took on the side of the cosmic road - he left it behind and never thought about it again.

I don't see why not. Again, it makes more sense to me to base assumptions off of ourselves instead of just thinking of random values and characteristics. Plus religions like Christianity spout things like, "Man is made in God's image." So if we are to take that and try it out...

[Nay_Sayer]

Image of god? Easy

[The Grand Nudger]

Looks like fun, can I help build an image of god by reference to the world we see around us?  God likes beetles.  Alot, he likes beetles more than anything else on earth (more than us by a wide margin), or at least he favors the conditions which favor the beetles...but looking at the numbers, I think it's the beetles. He's spent at least a quarter of his effort in making animals...making beetles.

The Coleopterans include more species than any other order, constituting almost 25% of all known types of animal life forms.[2][3][4] About 40% of all described insect species are beetles (about 400,000 species[5]), and new species are discovered frequently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All those are also to their benefit. I know, drug addiction doesn't benefit a person. But the act of injecting heroin is beneficial to you at that point in time because you want the high. Suicidal people feel that jumping off the building would be beneficial to them at that point in time. You push someone out of the way of a cab because sacrificing your well-being for the sake of somebody else's is in your character and seeing them get off without a scratch is something you want, so yes that was also an act beneficial for you in a way.

But you're now labeling, subjective, immediate relief as a 'benefit'.  While true as far as it goes, it really doesn't square with the creative motives you attribute to God.

I'd argue that it makes more sense than that. Basing his decisions off of something that we already knows makes sense to me. Besides, if he couldn't control his ability to make a universe then how could he be an all-powerful being?

It would make sense if God were human, but - by any reasonable definition - an omnimax Being isn't human and cannot be judged by human standards.  To even attempt to do so is the pathetic fallacy writ large.  In a reverse sort of way, this is like the human being who calls his pets his 'children' and thinks his houseplants know him by name.

How do we not know that we are free and autonomous compared to other species? We can observe that pretty easily.

Actually, we can't observe that at all.  To be autonomous means to be able to act in a matter that isn't coerced by an exterior agent.  My cats may not be autonomous, but they give a pretty damned good impression of being so.  What observations can you think of to support the point that human beings are the ONLY autonomous agents?  Bear in mind that you would need to come up with a set of observations that apply to every other species, from algae to Apatosaurs.

You can think of different ways that other species are "greater" than us, but our abilities eclipse theirs. We have logos (as Aristotle maybe mentioned in something he wrote?) which makes us unique and above other social animals. Also I don't have to tread on a stonefish. We can just kill them from afar by spilling some oil.

Actually, I'd say that some of our abilities eclipse some of theirs (and the reverse is manifestly true), is there a set of criteria you would use to define 'great' in this context?

Aristotle also claimed that men have more teeth than women, although it never occurred to him to have either of his wives open her mouth so he could count.  But is reasoned discourse necessarily an element of 'greatness'?

I don't see why not. Again, it makes more sense to me to base assumptions off of ourselves instead of just thinking of random values and characteristics.

But assumptions made off of ourselves may not even be valid.  As has been pointed out, there are more beetles than people and more bacteria than beetles.  You're trying to make assumptions about and attribute motives to a non-human entity.  You aren't describing an all-powerful creator, but a sort of demi-urge.

Boru

[brewer]

In the fantasy, the image would be in constant flux from god to person. The god entity would obviously have dibs on the image (do I want to appear good, bad, sad, angry, caring, terrifying, ......) depending on the occasion. The individual person would then see their perception of the good, bad, sad, .............

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In the fantasy, the image would be in constant flux from god to person. The god entity would obviously have dibs on the image (do I want to appear good, bad, sad, angry, caring, terrifying, ......) depending on the occasion. The individual person would then see their perception of the good, bad, sad, .............

Exactly. 'Man created God in his own image...'

Boru

[comet]

well. you made up the assumptions. so you can make up anything you want after them. There in no reason it had to be here forever. after that, mute points.