Hello,
For me I have found no reason to believe that there is such a noun-god that exist in our world. I don’t see how God could exist. I’m not saying that those who believe are wrong, it just can’t see it. I feel that ‘god’ is Being.
What do you think?
Anybody agree?
EZ$
Em
But what is being? Is there only being and non being? What is the essence of the relationship that produces “being”? This seems inadequate for me. This is why I prefer to say God is “meaning”. It exists on many levels the highest of which transcends time and space.
I agree with Nick_A. Depending on how ‘Being’ is defined, though, I would also like to know why we should use the word ‘God’ (or ‘god’) to refer to it. What purpose does it serve to call the act of Being ‘god’, other than to confuse us poor folks who believe in a noun God?
I use the word ‘god’ because it is the word that philosphy has used for years. You may give it another name.
Yes, philosophy has used that word for many years- to refer to a noun. A Person. I’m asking why you chose it for your concept. I mean, philosophy has been using the word ‘causation’ for years too. Why didn’t you pick that word?
‘god’ - philosphically can refer to specific entities OR can refer to a priciple, force, or activity.
Now how does Being not fit that?
EZ$
So, ‘god’ can refer to an entity, principle, force, or activity. Since Being is an activity, it’s ok to call Being ‘god’. Is that your angle? By that reasoning, I can call a toaster ‘god’, I can call Huey Lewis (and/or The News) ‘god’, I can call synchronized swimming ‘god’. I can certainly call Being ‘god’.
Let me ask my question another way. Is there any sense in which it is more appropriate to call Being ‘god’ than it is to call Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes ™ ‘god’? Does the word apply to both of them equally, or is there something special you mean to convey by referring to Being as ‘god’, instead of just calling it ‘Being’ all the time?
To reiterate, you really shouldn’t be answering my questions until you define “Being” anyhow.
What I mean by Being is "the Universal rule that everything must adhere to.
EZ$
Hi easy,
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could tell us if you see the concept of ‘god’ as the ‘one-behind-many’ -ie - the ‘big guy in the sky’. or if your concept of being is, that which is without referent. The former implies a causal universe, beginning and end, with lineal time. The latter suggests a process universe with infinite coming into ‘being’ and returning to, with the implicit understanding that the naming is nothing but a symbol for the totality of all.
JT
Easymoney,
“I feel that ‘god’ is Being.”
This essentially is Spinoza’s position, God is Nature, Nature is God. This was also Einstein’s position which he equated with Spinoza:
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” -N.Y. Times, Apr.25, 1929
Dunamis
Being implies stasis, a monolithic stable entity that endures forever.
Why not the Supreme Becoming?
Why not conceive of the divine as a dynamic process instead of a fixed entity? Is there a drive to seek something stable out of this world of constant transformation?
Xander,
“Why not conceive of the divine as a dynamic process instead of a fixed entity? Is there a drive to seek something stable out of this world of constant transformation?”
I agree, Supreme Becoming sounds good, but this seems to only cover one aspect of Being, what some call the diachronic, that which moves through time from singualarity to singularity, but there is another aspect of Being which some call synchronic, or structural, which seems to organize the diachrony and keep it from chaos, static or noise. It is the difficult intersection of these two “kinds” of being that that have produce a great sum philosophical debate. Spinoza, better than most, attempted to embrace both Being and Becoming. God as process, and God as isness. Even the idea of Becoming induces the question: becoming what?
Dunamis
Sort of redundant. Why redefine the word god when the word ‘being’ will already sufice?
Dunamis,
You express a good point there. This directs the discussion towards a more inclusive description.
I don’t know. “The Supreme Being & Becoming” perhaps?
This broader description lacks something.
Even the Supreme Becoming does not know what it will become. It is on a grand journey of self-discovery. This is an exploration of ability. The Supreme Becoming only discovers what it can do as it does it.
Xander,
“Even the Supreme Becoming does not know what it will become.”
Yes. But the “Supreme Being & Becoming” does. Being, in that it falls outside of Time, or what Spinoza calls “under the form of eternity”, understands the relation between all the diachronic parts.
Dunamis
Dunamis wrote:
The “Supreme Being & Becoming” may not know what it may become in that it may only encompass the potential relationships possible. This allows spontaneity and novelty to exist, which would be more in keeping with being and becoming.
Knowing without the potential of novelty throws us back to the one-behind-many ‘big boss’ viewpoint, whether we call it “God” or Supreme Being & Becoming".
JT
Tentative,
“This allows spontaneity and novelty to exist, which would be more in keeping with being and becoming.”
Only if you are not following a hard determinist line I would think. Being, in the “great chains of Necessity”, as Parmenides put it, would not allow spontaneity.
Dunamis
Satanical
Because in the search for ‘god’, ‘Being’ was found. It’s like you are looking for something and you have a name for it but you don’t know what it is.
EZ$
But why redefine the word god just to give it meaning? God is already defined as a patron creator deity. It seems pointless to redefine the word just to give it a place in our lives.
I feel the same about people that say ‘god is the universe’ or ‘god is a can of spagetti sauce under the sink’
Dr. S.
“But why redefine the word god just to give it meaning?”
Why redefine “Satanism”, when it has very little to do with Satan, the “patron evil-doer deity”?
Dunamis