Two Types of Gods
The common type of God is separate from the universe and has personal qualities. Some of these Gods are actual human persons (ex., Jesus, Krishna). Others have traits of a person (ex., Yahweh loved Jacob but hated Esau; Yahweh regretted making humanity and so sent a worldwide flood). Known person Gods of Earth number in the hundreds. Here are a few of them: Jesus, Krishna, Anuket, Astarte, Atlas, Dyeus, Freyja, Gaia, Isis, Ixcacao, Izanagi, Kali, Kichigonai, Lakshmi, Mat, Zemlya, Olorun, Pangu, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Tengri, Thor, Toci, Venus, Viracocha, Xi, Wangmu, and Zeus.
The ancient Greek philosopher Xenophanes famously said that if horses could draw, they would draw their gods as horses. If intelligent life exists throughout the universe, the number of person Gods may be in the billions.
The uncommon type of God is inherent in the universe and is not a person. The Tao of Taoism and the Brahman of Advaita Vedanta are examples. Along with its person Gods, Orthodox Christianity has the idea of Uncreated Light, the energies of God. Philosophically, the ideas of the Absolute or the Ultimate Ground of Existence may be regarded as a type of immanent, impersonal God.
Person Gods appear to be products of imagination. Impersonal Gods seem to converge to a single God: the impersonal foundation of all that exists. An analogy: the universe is like images on a computer monitor and God is like the light streaming from the monitor.
It seems to me that Earths person Gods are childish creations of human imagination. On the other hand, the absolute, ultimate ground of existence God seems credible to me.
Comments?
The ancient Greek philosopher Xenophanes famously said that if horses could draw, they would draw their gods as horses. If intelligent life exists throughout the universe, the number of person Gods may be in the billions.
The uncommon type of God is inherent in the universe and is not a person. The Tao of Taoism and the Brahman of Advaita Vedanta are examples. Along with its person Gods, Orthodox Christianity has the idea of Uncreated Light, the energies of God. Philosophically, the ideas of the Absolute or the Ultimate Ground of Existence may be regarded as a type of immanent, impersonal God.
Person Gods appear to be products of imagination. Impersonal Gods seem to converge to a single God: the impersonal foundation of all that exists. An analogy: the universe is like images on a computer monitor and God is like the light streaming from the monitor.
It seems to me that Earths person Gods are childish creations of human imagination. On the other hand, the absolute, ultimate ground of existence God seems credible to me.
Comments?
Comments (52)
If god is immanent in the universe, we talk about god all the time. Even physicists.
The impersonal god is also a product of the imagination. It is because impersonal gods is a vague enough concept that to group together as if there is a convergence.
The underlying assumption here is that there must be "an absolute, ultimate ground of existence". It teeters on the problem of otherness. As if what is in not sufficient to be what is, as if it must rely on and be supported by something else.
I don't agree with this. The recognition that it is worthwhile to see the universe, reality, as something living is an important one. It changes how you see everything. It gives something to be grateful to for all we have been given. God as a metaphysical entity is a useful way of seeing things.
Something living but impersonal?
Yeah, I struggled with the right way to say it. Conscious but impersonal? Not even that really. It's that reality can't be separated from human involvement, so the universe is half-human.
Ah, the self made man who worships his maker?
You see, either you bite the bullet of a 'transcendent' person who give s a fuck, or you have a half assed personification of the generality of 'life' which obviously doesn't give a fuck. And why should we give a fuck for that which doesn't give one?
God created the world, and then left it in the garage, and went off to do something more important. "Praise the Lord!"
Or, God didn't exactly create the world, it's just his digestive system. "Praise the Lord!"
Convince me that it is worth even speculating about this.
If I intended to bite a bullet, which I don't, it wouldn't be for either of the choices you've offered.
Quoting unenlightened
Convince me it is worth convincing you.
It isn't.
Sorry guys, I can't resist this 'butt-in,' to your exchange.
Why can't god/the universe/and everything not just 'butt-in' to your exchange and settle it by supporting T Clarks viewpoint. If it doesn't and remains divinely hidden, then for me, it does not exist.
Quoting T Clark
What if we haven't been GIVEN anything?
We can then only be grateful for that which WE CHOOSE to be grateful for, like each other!
Don't give credits to an ineffable it!
There is no evidence It exists or has done anything to deserve your thanks.
Then we have made it all ourselves.
Or else it has all just fallen to us.
Quoting universeness
Do you require evidence to be resentful? Do you require evidence to be grateful? Should I ask for your evidence that there is no evidence? You seem to be selling some snake oil here, and even giving commandments.
I agree with your first sentence.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes and yes.
You can if you want to and you must want to as you just typed the question. I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but not in the case of god.
What do you think I am trying to con you about based on your 'snake oil seller' suggestion?
Commandments?? Did I type 'thou shalt not ..... ?
I'm convinced.
Someone, something, somewhere deserves thanks for this wonderful world.
I agree, and I think it's those who have fought tooth and nail to pursue truth and those who demonstrate, almost every day, how kind people can be. Especially when it's kindness, from those who are having a tough time themselves. I thank them, not god, not anything supernatural. I thank humans for their demonstrations of altruism and care for other people and other things. I thank them for their continued struggle to make a better world, even though they have been killed in their millions and millions since we came out of the wilds. Good people still continue to try to improve things, in every new generation. I thank them for everything they have done, which has enabled me to live a life, with more options than my ancestors had. I hope I can pay that forward. They have earned that credit, god has not, but that's because it has no existent.
:up:
:up:
You and I see things differently.
Seeing things differently is not the problem. Correctly Identifying and stopping the nefarious is the imperative and what really matters, is if your 'differences,' makes you one of the nefarious, due to how your 'differences' affect your actions towards others. I hope that despite our differences with each other, WE BOTH are part of the very very needed solutions and we are not part of the problems that currently plague our species.
IPU? :chin:
No, divine hiddenness as described by such as the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I intelligo ... these are confusing times.
Does confusion not also excite you Mr Smith?
It means your quest for truth continues.
I still love that quest and it adds greatly to my sense of personal purpose and meaning and significance.
A wee lifeform like me, can continue to wonder about something as vast as the universe, AND I am OF that universe and I and the like of me, IS the only source of intent, purpose and intelligent design that we know of!
YOU LOSE FAKE GODS!!! WE don't need you anymore! We never really did!
The sooner ALL humans free themselves from god manacles, the better. GROW UP humans!
OWN your OWN lives, for f*** sake! :victory:
The foundational ground of existence god, by giving rise to the universe, gives evebtual rise to human polytheism as well as monotheism. It permits such developments/concepts to emerge during existence. It also allows for the emergence of consciousness, self, and the act of personification/anthropomorphism.
Also just as some physical properties are subsets of other more fundamental properties, some gods may be considered subsets of a foundational singular god: for example the god of time (Kronos), god of space (uranus), god of form/substance (proteus), etc. There is just about as many gods as there are concepts in physics, chemistry and human nature/ behaviour (war, peace, beauty, sex/love etc).
So, it seems that if such a foundational ground of existence God truly does exists, and may be called "God" instead of a first law/theory of everything (perhaps due to some discovery that consciousness is indeed as fundamental as time and space), then this God obviously doesn't mind millenia of conceptualizations and imaginings of his/her/its true nature.
I would believe that such a fundamental God would not restrict possibilities in the imagination of conscious beings. As creativity is part of the pursuit of knowledge/wisdom etc.
Thus, in conclusion, I don't think personal gods are so silly afterall. They simply make the universe a little bit more relatable and accesible to human minds. There is usually a kernel of truth in everything.
Of course person(ified) Gods are products of imagination. But not only that; single-entity Gods are depicted as males and referred to in the male gender. Of course, since they were created in a male-dominated society. And not only that. The Christian God is depicted as an old man, with white hair and beard, as if time has affected them. Not only that. They have emotions. Like the angry God below:
So, a personified God should at least be depicted as a being of a non-identified gender, ageless and emotionless. And It should be addressed to in a neuter gender.
Non-personified Gods, on the other hand, are more "realistic" and are usually depicted as energy, esp. light:
In fact, God should not even be depicted like that or referred to as such, since It should not be physical in nature. A God should look like this:
Nice topic, @Art48.
I am agree with that and your arguments reminded me of Kami, the deities, divinities, spirits, phenomena or "holy powers" that are venerated in the Shinto religion. In Shinto, kami are not separate from nature, but are of nature, possessing positive and negative, and good and evil characteristics. One of the main example of Kamis I like the most is Kitsune (a fox that possesses paranormal abilities as they get older and wiser). Japanese culture tend to be sensitive with seasons and nature and is well known that Kitsune is related to autumn. There are two common classifications of kitsune:
The zenko (??, lit.?'good foxes') are benevolent, on the other hand, the yako (??, lit.?'field foxes', also called nogitsune) tend to be mischievous or even malicious.
Look how beautiful is this old Japanese painting representing a kitsune under the moonlight. Realistic and it seems that represents and quiet and smoothly night.
All this is very interesting, Javi!
Quoting javi2541997
I know almost nothing about Shinto religion, but from what you say I understand that these gods are physical in nature rather than spirits, which are not. Is that right?
For a moment I thought that they are not of this world but they take the form and are manifested as physical entities, in order to be part of this world. Which gives rise to another conceptualization of "God" and "gods" and their depiction as such. But this is another kind of story, isn't it? :smile:
Quoting javi2541997
I believe you mean more sensitive than in other cultures, right?
Quoting javi2541997
Something like angels and demons, God and Satan or Devil, right?
BTW, I love Japanese writing! These symbols, for me, are the most beautiful in all languages I know of.
Quoting javi2541997
Beautiful indeed.
This is another thing I love a lot in Japanese art. So fine and airy painting!
I have 4 Japanese scroll paintings in my living room.
I can't imagine thinking this. To me the world seems an amoral and dangerous place (at best). But there are some people I would thank for their sacrifices on behalf of others.
Quoting Art48
I think it's just that ideas of gods evolve with changes in human knowledge. Also in my experience, conservative people seem to still like the stern father model of a deity. More liberal types seem to like 'the force' style theisms. God depictions seem to reflect education, culture and politics - which is hardly surprising. Theism has never stuck me as coherent or necessary and I think belief in god might just come down to personal taste, not all that much different to whether you like garlic or Beethoven.
I think our different ways of seeing things are probably a matter of temperament, i.e. a way of thinking we're born with rather than the result of learning or experience. I've always seen the world as beautiful and funny. I feel as if I belong here, in spite of some bad things and unhappiness along the way.
Exactly. Kamis tend to be physically connected with nature and the environment. Some of the objects or phenomena designated as kami are qualities of growth, fertility, and production; natural phenomena like wind and thunder; natural objects like the sun, mountains, rivers, trees, and rocks; some animals; and ancestral spirits.
If one day you visit Japan, you would see in forests or mountains representations of kamis in tiny houses. Most of them are usually described with a Kanji related to nature. One of the I like the most is "kumori" which means "cloudy".
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, it is. I have been reading Japanese literature for the past two years and I perceive they are more sensitive than other cultures.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
One of my main dreams is being capable of reading Japanese. I wish I can reach such objective one day. I am currently studying (by myself, autodidact) basic Japanese kanjis and hiragana, but I am so far away to read and understand all the symbols! :cry:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Interesting!
We're soul brothers, Tom, in the St.Germain-des-Pres, circa 1953. :cool:
I agree there are uses for person Gods. If that were not true, there wouldn't be so many of them. But I find it difficult to take them seriously. That easy to see (for me, at least) for the elephant and monkey Gods of India. I find Christian stories a bit more believable but not much.
OK. But if their nature is physical, shouldn't they be perceivable?
Well, I wonder if the same question applies to the gods of the Greek and other mythologies, who are usually considered "creatures", which by definition are physical! How can intelligent people --as I assume they were-- talk about "invisible" creatures?
The gods in the American Indian culture, on the orher hand, although they have names of animals, they are considered spirits, whish are not physical. Hats off to them! (And of course to all the other people, the culture of whom includes gods that are not physical in nature. E.g. the Australian aboriginal mythological spirits.)
We are talking here of course about gods in native cultures (from a historical viewpoint), not the religions that we have today, in which God is considered a spirit.
***
(For the rest, which is outside this topic, check your INBOX ...)
Many of these images of deities were products of the 'childhood of civilisation'. The audience for them were agrarian peasants and nomadic wanderers many altogether outside civilisation at a vastly earlier period of history (or pre-history). Because they belong to a different era of humanity then naturally the kinds of imagery that will be meaningful to them is vastly different to the denizens of post-industrial technocratic culture. One of this civilisation's major problems is that it has outgrown its own mythos, resulting often in stark nihilism.
One of the standard philosophy of religion essays I often link to is John Hick, 'Who or What is God?' It's quite a dense read, but it is about just this subject. He says of the many different, and apparently conflicting, religious doctrines that
And considering the vast diversity of human cultures and languages then it's hardly surprising that there is a vast diversity of types of beliefs.
You can change your status quo. What has depressed you in the past can excite you in the future, if you choose to change your perspective, whilst using peer reviewed justifications for doing so.
Quoting Agent Smith
That's why we debate each other Mr Smith. :grin:
I agree with you, based on our exchanges, so what efforts are you making to try to stabilise your world viewpoints? If you continue to challenge your current position as a reluctant theist, then who can ask anymore of you? I hope the result of any challenge you set yourself, results in you becoming a very assured atheist. If it results on you becoming a very assured theist then, that's ok to but that just means any exchange between us on TPF, will remain respectfully combative.
I would suggest however that either result, is better than your current limbo state of reluctant theism.
No wonder you get depressed at times.
:up: I would only appreciate derailment, if you can PROVE I am on a track, travelling at great speed, and the rail runs out, at the top of a very large, very deep chasm. :scream:
Your depth of care towards others, obviously, has no [s]beginning[/s] bounds! :death: :flower:
I try.
The OP explores an interesting topic, but I'm not equippedfor the discourse.
I agree. But, considering the limited range of world experience of ancient people, it's understandable that even smart adult people would imagine their deity in concrete metaphors. The abstract hypothetical notion of an Eternal/Infinite ground-of-being would appeal only to a minority of abstract philosophical thinkers. Ultimates & Generalizations don't put food on the table. So the remote fleshless ghosts of hypothetical principles typically have little appeal to those whose Reality is limited to what they can see & touch. Ironically, that description fits some on this forum. :smile:
Sounds like you are an Agnostic. Which is a legitimate philosophical position on the notion of an invisible causal force in the world. Are you also "reluctant" about Energy? Have you ever seen that omnipresent creative/destructive power? Or do you just take it on faith in the testimony of theoretical physicists?
According to most physicists, there is no such thing as Energy. It's merely a label for the Cause of physical Change. Like the concept of Creator, It's a mental metaphor, not a material object. Is that something you can believe in? :smile:
Agnostic :
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
__Google
Who is the Hindu god of creation and destruction? :
Brahma is the creator of the universe while Vishnu is the preserver of it. Shiva's role is to destroy the universe in order to re-create it. Hindus believe his powers of destruction and recreation are used even now to destroy the illusions and imperfections of this world, paving the way for beneficial change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/deities/shiva.shtml
Types of Energy :
Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy
Note -- Does that description of Eternal Energy sound suspiciously like a Hindu deity to you?