Building God

Following Aristotle which claims that God is the ideal of our striving and Hegel’s assertion that God is under development, it seems to me that out motivations for perfection which ties into Adlerian psychology to some extent are in a creative process for God. Aren’t we not socially striving for eternity by living longer or utilizing globalization and communication effeciency to be “omniscient” as fully as our potential will allow?

It seems feasible to me that we are indeed striving to be “perfect” or God-like. I’m interested in other thoughts on how such motivation could be introduced without being first actualized. Since we are building God, it seems we are not quite sure what “God” is yet but our inspiration in what we find to be enduring qualities of ourselves are collectively imposed and refined over time to bring us closer to evolving understanding and definition of perfection. I relate this to a historical perspective on God which has changed with evolving social thought.

Thanks for any input.

Hi Enigma,

I quite like this idea. I also believe that from the point of view of Philosophy it could appear that way. My own personal approach is that we are trying to fathom something that is existent in a form that we can experience, that we can grasp, but which requires looking for. If we follow the reported words of Christ, God and his heavens are all around us, in our midst.

Paul took up this view according to Luke when he was in Athens:

Outside of this kind of spirituality, you could say that God is under construction, but I would say that we are constructing our knowledge of God - and haven’t come that far!


I appreciate your insights Bob.

It is very interesting to me how much our views on God have been altered throughout history. This seems relative to progressions we have made socially. From this, it appears that we as a society are indeed striving to be what we can ultimately conceive which is perfection or God. And fortunately or unfortunately, whichever view you wish to take, we may be getting closer to this ideal. The reason I believe this to be so is the increase in our longetivity, intelligence, and universal awareness (omniscience). These are of course up for debate, but it can easily be viewed that such items are progressively enhancements from our ancestory. Especially in regards to manipulating and understanding the universe.
Whether we can actually achieve “perfection” socially may or may not be possible, but the concept itself seems to be a motivating ideal relative to our being. One could claim that this is “God,” “Nature,” “perfection” or a variety of other interpretations; but the goal is somewhat agreeable generally although the definitions and specifics are not. The variety and diversity associated with such definitions may be because the concept itself has not been actualized and is still a work in progress. Perhaps we all have pieces to the puzzle and it is up to collectiveness, social cooperation, and time to put it all together and create the masterpiece that is the striving of our existence.

Interesting discussion, a point to be made is, as we increase our knowledge of science are we creating science? or are we undertsanding that which has always been? If scientific advancement results in a better undertsanding of “laws” that govern our universe could not religious advancement also simply be a better undertsanding of what has always existed?

Thank you, Enigma, we are on the same page.

I have a grim outlook on the matter. I do not think that belief in a God is healthy and I am inclined to say that, actually, it is a symptom of decline. Behind every religion I see a secret distrust and suspicion against life. If not first they dispise the brutal facticity of the world, then surely they claim that because of that, this life is useless unless it is for the development of and toward an alternative to the world they find themselves in here and now. But since this “other world” does not exist, this resolve is a waste of time and potential, is disturbing to the rapport we have with this life, yet it provides the tonic necessary to endure such an anxiety. An anxiety that only exists if this world is misunderstood in the first place; the religious create the monster and then a way to deal with it. The irony here is spectacular. What most religious people think they are fixing is in fact an “undoing” and a sabotage of a grand and magnificent potential.

I follow the Sartrean existential psychoanalysis. “God” is a projection of the human psyche, a symbolization of an ideal which is unrealizable in human existence. What “God” represents to man is a kind of hearth, a father figure, an embodiment of human ideals which cannot be an actuality. First and foremost, God will represent those characteristics which human subjectivity lacks. Things like “perfection,” “necessity,” “objectivity.” Also, “God” would represent a foundation for morality in a world where “good” and “bad” are extremely contextual and contingent. These, to name a few, are the elements involved in the psychological conception of “God.”

This conception is also specific and tailored to the nature of human existence. To have such a conception, a being must be conscious. We need only to examine the nature of consciousness to see how everything falls nicely into place. Once we realize the negative being, that is, the nothingness or “no-thing-ness” of consciousness, we will find how these themes are appropriate in the conception of God by such a being who is conscious, temporary, essentially meaningless, and with no purpose other than this existence. For every quality that we do not have, we attribute to a fail safe “God.” It is a way of saving face and dealing with a world that has been slandered and reproached with great vehemence by our “religious” friends from day one.

And Nietzsche tells us to pass them by with sleeping words? Bullshit. Grab a baseball bat and start whacking some heads. What damage can be done if the head is empty anyway? I call it “moving on.”

No, it isn’t. Jesus was a political aggitator executed by the Romans. He was a revolutionary that served no other function than to help in the liberation of slaves from the Roman empire. He was part of a small Jewish sect that evolved out of Greco-Roman paganism. He was the corner stone of democracy and feminine virtues, compassion, pity, and compromise, of which, indeed, are useful mores, but by no means the dynamic underlying life; the will to power. He made contributions that are minor and blown way out of proportion. That is the only historical and sociological significance that that man ever had. Period.

And this is only if one need to go this far in such a consideration. I had hoped that it wouldn’t be necessary to point out these historical contingencies, but some don’t seem to graduate past even this point of simple and common logic.

de’trop wrote:

Well, there is to be no discussing with you I see.

Apart from your getting your facts wrong, I think you might have confused Christ with Spartacus or someone like that. Christ had nothing to do with liberating slaves - unless you mean by awareness. He was not “a part” of a jewish sect that evolved out of any kind of paganism - he was a devout Jew who would have no part of paganism. I don’t know what he would have thought about democracy as we know it - they weren’t that far in his time.

This may reflect your standpoint:

But surely it is just polite to get your facts right …?


Ah yes, the facts. One must be cautious when considering a report given about a man who existed four thousand years ago. Not to mention the possibility that these interpretations are not objective and indifferent, but rather a loaded portrayal of a man who was grossly exaggerated to serve ulterior motives in the creation of a religion.

The fact is that seven headed dragons do not descend from the heavens and swallow up the earth. The fact is that even after admitting this, no allegorical value will save the credibility of the Bible or any other doctrine that depicts the life of Jesus Christ after stating such nonsense. Forget about Jesus…consider the source from which you learn about him, and discredit the whole.

I can’t believe I’m even having this conversation, Bob.

Hi Enigma,

Whilst I get the idea of what you mean, do you really think that human beings can physically get past the border of 120 years? I have a professional connection to people in old age and see human beings in all sorts of biologically degrading processes, especially with vascular problems, which cause a whole range of health problems. For this reason I think that any dreams of longevity must be put on ice until this problem is solved.

I dispute too that we are becoming more intelligent. I believe that we may be on a level with people of the past, but we’re not further. Our knowledge of course has increased, including our ability to call up lots of knowledge. However the latter makes us sometimes lazy and reliant upon technology, which again effects our understanding and sagacity.

I do ask myself whether there is a universal awareness – we watch the news of course and get reports from all over the world, we can read about the latest findings of science, but I get the feeling that people are generally becoming (perhaps necessarily) individualistic and losing the social awareness that people have had in the past – at least enough to rebuild after the wars.

Given these fallibilities, can we be optimistic about the future of mankind? I used to watch Star-Trek – now there’s escapism for you! I liked the ideas that Rodenberry had developed but I then spoke to a physicist and he burst my bubble. He said that we will probably never leave the planet and be able to return again.

Now, if I look at what I regard to be God, then it would be someone/ -thing able to create something like a Universe in which life like us is possible. That is, life that can reflect upon itself, upon it’s coming and going and look for purpose. It would be necessarily above(meta) physical life. And that is something that we are far from being.

I think the thoughts about “perfection” reveal our problem: a machine can be perfect simply by fully accomplishing what it is designed for. If human beings are just biological machines, then we could be perfect – depending on what we were designed for. But I don’t believe we are machines, and I don’t believe that we can be perfect.

I believe it is incorrect to use such a term to describe God as well. The Jewish Commandment that says that the name of God must not be taken in vain and that no image should be made, shows that God, as “he” is thought of in the Jewish/Christian and Muslim context, is beyond our comprehension. The statement that man is made in the image of God is of course a provocation – and I believe it is meant to be.

I doubt very much whether many people would be as optimistic about the development of mankind as you are. At least 75% of Mankind probably has never had such thoughts.


No “other world”? Jesus is an “aggitator”? You may be right but how do you support these claims?

You speak about religions as failed social organizations, you neglect to realize that most religions are founded on profound spirtual experiences not social needs. Social structures follow religious experience and rarely are designed by the individual that had the personal experience.

Four thousand years - please, isn’t it common knowledge that we have just passed the second Millenium?


No. It is common knowledge and generally accepted by the scientific community that the Earth is estimated to be about 4,550 million years old. This theory is concluded by carbon dating and by examining the sedimentation rates of the oceans, rivers, and other bodies of water. This is hard science, Bob.

You are going to sit there and tell me that civilization on this earth does not predate 4,000 years?

Nonsense. This is an argument that is against the evidence presented in favor of biological evolution. You say God created the earth with all the fossils already in place? Clever God, but with a malicious sense of humor. You are placing belief in revelation and not in observation and reason.

That’s right. No “other world.” Any conceptualization of a metaphysical “other world” remains hypothetical and corespondant to the capacity of the imagination in this world. If such a hypothetical world is realized and becomes an actuality, then it is, in turn, a product of this world and disqualifies itself as the “other” worldly, for the other worldly is precisely a negation of a possible actual world.

Jesus was an aggitator because he raised objections to the traditional and political substructures of civilization. They didn’t like his pestering, so they nailed him to a tree(well, a cross, made out of wood nonetheless).

Define “spiritual experience” and I will continue.

Precisely, Bob. Do tell how something incomprehensible is comprehensible once we admit that it is incomprehensible.


Very true, any conceptualization of the other world is only hypothetical until the “other world” is actualized, but the same applies to the “Big Bang”, “Inflationary Cosmology”, “Super String Theory” etc.

By “spiritual experience” I refer to that instance of personal experience where an individuals mind, spirit, soul, psyche enters into a relationship with something that is beyond the realm of common experience.

In many religions, the individual that forms the foundational philosophy and beliefs of the religion claims to have had a personal spiritual experience that is not common to the general population. The social aspect of the religion is what develops as those who follow the philosophy try to incorporate the philosophy into their daily lives. They have faith enough in the philosophy to change the social structure of their world to coincide with the new philosophy. In most cases the founder of the religion did not create or even suggest the social structure that develops as a result of actualizing the spiritual experience.

"By “spiritual experience” I refer to that instance of personal experience where an individuals mind, spirit, soul, psyche enters into a relationship with something that is beyond the realm of common experience. "

Here we go again. You and Bob are two peas in a pod. My response to Bob’s treatment of “inexplicable experience” is the same response I shall give to you regarding your “spiritual experience” which is “beyond” common experience-

"What I really liked was your admission that religion doesn’t support any “proof” for the existence of a “god.” However, what I do not understand is how you would believe that “inexplicable phenomena” serves as some kind of evidence for proving what religion cannot. It seems that you might subscribe to the notion that “proof” is a very scientific and logical affair, which, indeed it is, yet when faced with some phenomena that isn’t explained “scientifically,” you might want to say that it cannot be explained, and that this failure is some necessary proof for an experience that is neither “scientific” or “logical.”

To give you an example of what I mean, consider a primitive man’s experience of a thunder storm. For him, the experience is very real, but the phenomena of a bolt of lightening is “inexplicable” because, without the means of science, he has no way to explain it, it’s origins, it’s reason for striking, etc., etc. He will then interpret the phenomena as “supernatural” and might likely attribute it to some kind of “divine” intervention, being caused by something above and beyond his worldy experience. Then, a thousand years later, through the use of scientific technology, the lightening is discovered to be electricity, and there is no longer a need to attribute the phenomena to some supernatural event."

“There are no atheists in fox hole’s”

Precisley, now you are getting the point, religion is based upon “faith” not proof. No one can prove to you that Jesus was the son of God, that Moses met with God, or that a “another world exists” Religion is not scientific nor is love but people believe in love.

Any Cosmology you may endorse requires that you have faith in an underlying premise that is required as a foundation for your chosen cosmology.

To view the world strictly as an empiricist is ones choice but one that would have robbed me of some of the finest social experiences I have had. To decide that 90% of humanity is socialy inadequate is to deprive yourself of the experiences that make life real. Instaed of looking for justification for the beliefs people adhere to try experiencing the fruit of their beliefs. this does not mean you need to become what they are but experience without judment can be very enlightening

No one in a fox hole would think twice about trading their faith for their life.

While I lack the personal conviction, millions of martyrs of all faiths prove you wrong. How many people have been put to death and all they had to do to survive was to denounce their religion?

Some interesting points here and I’m personally not inclined to argue whether religion is a detriment or not. I think religion, much like philosophy, can be positive or detrimental. It is the users that we have to keep our eyes on. :astonished:

I guess the way I see things in regards to striving for perfection is that we are gradually obtaining more understanding and control of the actual universe ourselves when compared with those of previous ages. To me, this represents how we generally view “God.” Now whether you believe in God or not, or even if you ave varying views on God is in my opinion irrelevant to the motivation in which we strive to control and understand the universe more fully. I think this motivation is really hard to deny in itself. Whether this motivation to control and understand the universe is detrimental and/or positive is another debate worthy of exploration, but I think it is not far removed from proposition.

Personally, I think we project ourselves into the notion of God, but I think there are also notions of something that projects upon us this drive for perfection, for universal control and understanding much like we attribute to God. Now what exactly this is that drives us is to me a mystery of all mysteries and there are many different ways to define it. Is one more accurate than another? Not sure and not sure that we can get a consensus on such an understanding, but the drive itself for whatever reason is there. A drive to understand and control the universe much like we attribute a God to. I think we are gradually getting closer and closer to the perfection we envision and relate to various understandings.

In our quest to build God (understand and control the universe), I think we ourselves understand our purpose and meaning which we attribute to our lives and everyone else’s. The problems relative to this is we all have our own individual impressions of what this God (final product [or initial product based on which way you want to work from]) should be. I believe collectively we define this God and it isn’t something that can be clearly understand by any one age because it is a gradual process that is ongoing. We can however detect the motivation and cast whatever labels on it we wish, but the source of this motivation is in itself a compelling source of curiousity. Perhaps we will never truly discover what this source is and then again maybe we will or already have, but this motivation to build God seems to be a vital component to our humanity.

Eh, no real argument against that.

It’s more of an inductive statement. I’m sure you’d agree that faith is something most truly possess, and if it came down to life vs. faith, they’d choose life as the drive to live is much stronger than the drive to believe in something higher than yourself.

What are you talking about? I get the feeling that you are definitely confusing the issues here. I reacted to this:

Who were you talking about? I was under the impression you were talking about Jesus

And suddenly you’re off on a journey to the beginnings of the world.

Where are you de’trop - we’ll send out the searching squad!


Sorry folks, we did get very off topic, I thought everybody had stopped watching this site.

I agree with the comment that we are building “God” but within limits. I look back to the beginning of my journey and I will certainly agree that my quest was to find a religion that suited my Image of God. The question was which is the right religion? As time went on I discovered that I could not find a religion that suited my needs and I began to formulate an Image of God that suited my world view.

Now here’s where I take the plunge and get labbeled as a nut, one evening I had a personal experience that changed my view of the world and religion.

The net result over a long period of time was an understanding that all religions carry some element of truth and that no one religion contains all of what is truth nor could any religion. The true pleasure of religion for me then became understanding the people that make up a religion rather than trying to decide if their beliefs were true or not.

I no longer would agree that I am building God, I would now say that I experience God through the many manifestations that make up our religious fabric. In essence “God” is now building me.

I am careful in using the term “God” as it it very Western Oriented and limits the realm of experience.