God's God

[Neo-Scholastic]

You theists are also missing median's point about "global universe."

I do not think so. median has been pretty clear that he/she equates the 'global universe' with the physical universe, i.e. the universe governed by physics as we currently understand it.

...what Median refers to as "global universe" and I refer to as "Universe" encompasses the whole system:

[First Cause--->Cosmos] = "Universe" (or "global universe" in Median's terminology)

Taken as a whole, existence and order are inherent properties of the system, and cannot be externally imposed because there is no "external" from whence such an imposition can come.

I agree with this statement. Once again it depends on what you include as part of the whole that has always existed. Median has both here and elsewhere shown no interest in exploring what could be included in the whole. You seem to, so I am responding to your comments.

A "monotheistic god" is most commonly represented as a type of thinking, language-using, social person who engages in status-seeking among humans...demanding a monopoly on human attention and reverence.

I believe most Christians, Muslims and Jews would understand that these are anthropomorphic conventions to help us finite creatures understand the ineffable.

[median]

You theists are also missing median's point about "global universe."

I do not think so. median has been pretty clear that he/she equates the 'global universe' with the physical universe, i.e. the universe governed by physics as we currently understand it.

...what Median refers to as "global universe" and I refer to as "Universe" encompasses the whole system:

[First Cause--->Cosmos] = "Universe" (or "global universe" in Median's terminology)

I agree with this statement. Once again it depends on what you include as part of the whole that has always existed. Median has both here and elsewhere shown no interest in exploring what could be included in the whole. You seem to, so I am responding to your comments.

This is a very peculiar, funny, and quite dishonest way of making an accusation Chad. Somehow I have "no interest in exploring what could be included in the whole"?? Where did I ever allude to not being interested in discussion regarding mere possibilities? This is another one of your dishonest dirty little tricks. You aren't arguing for anyone to "just explore" with you the "possibilities". You BELIEVE in this non-demonstrable disembodied mind and you're trying to get others to jump on board with this assertion you bought into early on (prior to ever knowing any of these sophisticated arguments such as KCA) so that, then, you can get them to believe the bible as the word of God and bring them to your idea of "salvation". So you're really not fooling anyone but yourself. People don't base their entire lives on merely what they feel are just "possibilities", or go on websites to try and defend what they feel just "might be true". Come on now. WOW.

How funny that you call yourself a Christian yet you can't (at the very least) be honest that you don't know how the universe began.

But lastly, pertaining to this 'first cause' mantra, even IF (and that's a big gigantic IF...) you could demonstrate that our local universe, which we now experience, required some 'divine mind'...WHO CARES!? It's of no consequence. This 'thing' you're attempting to point to is indistinguishable from that which does not exist. This alleged deity is invisible, silent, non-demonstrable, non-verifiable, non-falsifiable, and is wholly not checking in with anyone who "he" supposedly loves and wishes should be "saved"! This entire argument that we're 'not interested' in "exploring" whether this deity is real is based in your presupposition that there 'must be' some 'disembodied mind' behind the universe. Yet again, the real reason you accept these arguments (such as KCA), and are trying to defend them, is due to an assumption of your religion. How circular! And dishonest.

A "monotheistic god" is most commonly represented as a type of thinking, language-using, social person who engages in status-seeking among humans...demanding a monopoly on human attention and reverence.

I believe most Christians, Muslims and Jews would understand that these are anthropomorphic conventions to help us finite creatures understand the ineffable.

HA! What a blatant contradiction! Describable but ineffable. Wow. So you have 66 books by 40 different authors (the bible) supposedly written at the inspiration of God (with thousands of words describing 'him'), trying to communicate some message of who he is etc, yet this God is "ineffable"? And you can't see how irrational this is?? WHAT SPIN! Your own bible clearly blows this assertion out of the water (yet why do you believe it in the first place?). According to it God is "the logos", who created us "in his image and likeness" and who inspired the written documents to be written (supposedly) so that man can understand him and his message. That is FAR from ineffable and it just shows that you apologists (and religionists of your ilk) have no problem SPINNING and rationalizing away any point of contention which demonstrates your position as extremely flawed. Again how dishonest. It is certainly clear that you don't really care if your beliefs are actually true.

[Whateverist]

Btw, you have no examples of anything "causing itself" to exist. That is incoherent.

I'm not sure it is incoherent but I've always thought it odd to assume this category had any members when none but hypothetical candidates have ever been claimed.

---

@Tex

No one on AF has ever before called me either a liar or an asshole. Apparently, median is just another belligerent blowhard. He has nothing useful to offer the conversation. The thread was soiled the minute he first posted. He's a good candidate for the ignore list.

Lets hope it is only a phase he'll outgrow. If he has as he says actually been a Christian apologist but now rejects that position, he must be pretty pissed off. You're likely going to catch some hell you don't have coming old chap .. unless you remember to duck.

The insistence on dead certainty may be harder to shake than the faith itself. I also find condescension and blow hardiness unattractive. Nonetheless, I'm very interested to know more about median's experience and perspective.

[Lord Privy Seal]

I do not think so. median has been pretty clear that he/she equates the 'global universe' with the physical universe, i.e. the universe governed by physics as we currently understand it.

OK, Median does appear to have stated that more clearly in a subsequent post. I'm not sure if s/he would accept the proviso "physics as we currently understand it" (that would imply ruling out the possibility of new discoveries in physics), but s/he has used the term "physical" as a proviso for the contents of "global universe."

A "monotheistic god" is most commonly represented as a type of thinking, language-using, social person who engages in status-seeking among humans...demanding a monopoly on human attention and reverence.

I believe most Christians, Muslims and Jews would understand that these are anthropomorphic conventions to help us finite creatures understand the ineffable.

I think most of them would say that in order to wrap their god in a cloak of mystery, but their behavior does not indicate that they "understand" their god as anything other than a haloed celestial monarch. The occasional rare bird like Bishop Spong or Karen Armstrong might take the "ineffable" thing seriously and say that all the demands for obedience, praise, enforcement of local taboos about sex, clothing, diet, gender roles, etc. are just the best attempts of ancient peoples to grope toward an understanding of That which is beyond human ken. However, the priests and pastors and mullahs and imams and the believers in the pews and on the prayer rugs treat the "Deity as Ultimate Alpha Human" stuff as if that's what matters most, making pronouncements on these matters with unshakeable confidence, as if their god was not the least bit ineffable.

A Thought Experiment:

Imagine, if you will, an entity called the Artilect. The Artilect is a "matrioshka brain," layers of solar collectors, "computronium" (matter optimally organized for quantum-computation and thought), sensor arrays, etc. entirely surrounding a star in a sphere with a radius of a hundred million kilometers. The Artilect is several trillion, trillion, trillion times as intelligent, knowledgeable, wise, ethical, emotionally and mystically aware (whatever that means ) as the entire human species put together. The Artilect is able to directly perceive the entire electromagnetic spectrum, dark matter, dark energy, the geometry of spacetime in however many dimensions, and other aspects of reality that we humans cannot even imagine. The Artilect's technology is every bit as far beyond our own as you might expect, and then some.

Take a few moments to contemplate what the Artilect would be like, what kind of thoughts and intentions It might have...what it might be like to be the Artilect.

...

...

...

Now, imagine that the Artilect has opened a wormhole into our solar system so that It can extend a tendril of Itself through and observe what is here, including humans. What do you think It would do?

Now, if you were reading a science fiction story about the Artilect, finally reaching the point where the Artilect speaks to humanity...and it says, "I am the Artilect! I am CEO of CEO's and Manager of Managers! You shall NOT wear denim! You shall NOT eat ice cream with nuts! You shall NOT have sex doggie-style, for these things are ABOMINATIONS unto me! I'm serious, they get my dander right up! You shall tell me how awesome I am at least once per day, and I expect to be more famous than the Kardashians! Oh, and give me money!"...

...wouldn't you throw the book against the wall in disgust? Or maybe laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of it? How much more ridiculous then, the notion that "God," a being that is (supposed to be) infinitely superior to the Artilect in every way, would have as "his" top priority, the accumulation of status, authority, and praise from humans!

Doesn't it also seem a little odd to you that a god who is as ferociously jealous over his status and authority as he is portrayed being in the Bible and the Quran would be content to allow mere human "holy men" to collect all the power, glory, and money "on his behalf?" Does the presence of these men, and the benefits they gain from being the Sky King's courtiers, not provide a rather parsimonious and, dare I say, obvious explanation for "God's" supposed obsession with bossing humans around? The whole "ineffability" thing makes a rather nice curtain for them to hide behind while they pull the levers and speak for their Mighty Oz, don't you think?

Edit: to fix formatting and grammar.

[archangle]

god aint jealous. I don't get that out of the bible at all. I get god as having some of the same "feelings" as we do. We are in his image.
people need to "praise" god. God don't need it. God probably feels that 'if it makes you feel better ... pray, if it don't make you feel better ...don't pray".

[Lord Privy Seal]

god aint jealous. I don't get that out of the bible at all. I get god as having some of the same "feelings" as we do. We are in his image.
people need to "praise" god. God don't need it. God probably feels that 'if it makes you feel better ... pray, if it don't make you feel better ...don't pray".

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation[a] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

--Exodus 20:4-6, NRSV, emphasis added

He'd have to be pretty jealous to punish people's great-great-great grandchildren because their ancestors worshiped the wrong gods, wouldn't he? And if he gets the worship and obedience he wants, he'll be soooooo happy that he'll love your great-times-a-thousand grandchildren...though he doesn't say what he'll do if they worship other gods.

(for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

--Exodus 34:14, emphasis added

Here Yahweh is presented as identifying so closely with jealousy that it becomes his name. Think about this in the context of the great importance of his name in ancient Judaism, e.g. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain," etc., which eventually developed into a refusal by the Hebrews (and for that matter, Jews today) to even pronounce the Tetragrammaton ("YHWH"), and substituting "Adonai" for it in Torah readings.

Do not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who are all around you, because the Lord your God, who is present with you, is a jealous God. The anger of the Lord your God would be kindled against you and he would destroy you from the face of the earth.

--Deuteronomy 6:14-15, emphasis added

Mad enough to commit genocide? Kinda hard to reconcile that with the tolerant, laid-back god you 'get' out of the Bible.

I could easily produce more examples.

[archangle]

Sure is "jealous". This holding people accountable for their actions angle. yep, jealous is teaching people to not "idolize" god. That treating a statue as "god" will mislead you into unspeakable actions. that focusing on something more important than you is the primary goal. These are the most selfish, insanely jealous notions I have ever seen. lmao.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure is "jealous". This holding people accountable for their actions angle.

Only those actions which it supposedly wrote taboos against - of course.

yep, jealous is teaching people to not "idolize" god. That treating a statue as "god" will mislead you into unspeakable actions.

Wrong idol, wrong statue. doesn't have any problems with it;s own religious art.

that focusing on something more important than you is the primary goal.

so long as that something isn;t other people, or other gods, or other anything - really. IOW, so long as it isn;t something other than itself

These are the most selfish, insanely jealous notions I have ever seen. lmao.

The most - meh, I don't know, but they're up there. The redeeming part, is that it's all complete bullshit, know what I mean?

[archangle]

Sure is "jealous". This holding people accountable for their actions angle.

Only those actions which it supposedly wrote taboos against - of course.

yep, jealous is teaching people to not "idolize" god. That treating a statue as "god" will mislead you into unspeakable actions.

Wrong idol, wrong statue. doesn't have any problems with it;s own religious art.

that focusing on something more important than you is the primary goal.

so long as that something isn;t other people, or other gods, or other anything - really. IOW, so long as it isn;t something other than itself

These are the most selfish, insanely jealous notions I have ever seen. lmao.

The most - meh, I don't know, but they're up there. The redeeming part, is that it's all complete bullshit, know what I mean?

yeah, your literal take on the bible is all bullshit. I think people's take on the bible is a look into the person.

[Lord Privy Seal]

Sure is "jealous". This holding people accountable for their actions angle.

Ah, yes, "holding people accountable" sounds so much better, doesn't it? Has such a nice, judicial vibe. Almost like there might be some lofty ethical principle involved. Too bad your sacred text just says he's jealous. Also: holding people's great-great-great grandchildren "accountable" because their distant ancestors worshiped the "wrong" deities? Really?

yep, jealous is teaching people to not "idolize" god. That treating a statue as "god" will mislead you into unspeakable actions.

Because treating a book as "god" totally won't, right? *cough*Inquisition*cough*

that focusing on something more important than you is the primary goal.

I'm not sure what this incomplete sentence has to do with anything. "Worship me or I'll make your great-great-great-grandchildren suffer!" as a lofty calling to a selflessly loving ethical life? That's quite the Magic Decoder Ring you've got there. Funny though that Yahweh, the supposed moral exemplar, never considers anything more important than himself, his "glory," and getting his daily ego fellatio.

These are the most selfish, insanely jealous notions I have ever seen. lmao.

I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but that is exactly what the text says, in plain language. Those passages are not from some parable or esoteric mystical allegory. They're from texts of ancient Hebrew law. You may wish they said something else, but it's intellectually dishonest to actually pretend that they do.