My thoughts on 'God'

I will list my personal ideas on ‘God’.

First of all, ‘God’ is just a word.
God is basically the biggest living entity in reality.
God created some stuff and supports other things but didn’t create virtually everything.
God is entirely natural and not supernatural.
God exists in multiple planes and dimensions but has some main zones in which it exists.
God’s core regions are in some higher dimensions and at the center of the universe.
God’s body is made of a vast number of tiny living particles which can communicate with eachother.
God isn’t all knowing but it’s highly aware.
God isn’t all powerful but God is fairly strong.
God doesn’t want worship or religions.
God wants us to make progress in our existence.
God doesn’t care if you’re gay or strait because God isn’t a retard.
God is in many ways a gentle passivist. God doesn’t try to punish people or enforce rules.
There are many demigods made of living energies which are also strong but not as strong
as the main living core which can be called ‘God’.
Flaws in reality are natural because reality wasn’t built by perfect intelligence.
Sometimes when people die they get to meet ‘God’, because ‘God’ lives near the
dimensions where souls also exist. Souls are made of a substance similar to what
‘God’ is made of, living energy particles.
Souls and God are mortal, but God wont die of old-age and so-far nothing has been
bad enough to kill it.

So, Dan, if you were to picture this “God” as you describe it, who would it be?

It would look like a big ball of light.
Ancient and wise, having a very complex and deep personality.

Not all of reality is alive, but some of it is.
A natural god reflects the nature of its environment.

How many gods have you described here? One is like a big ball of light.
Then there seems to be a god to reflect every environment, past present and
future, but only a natural god. So, what about environments that are not
natural?

The mind boggles.

So immorality could kill God? souls are immortal? So what is it that dies when a person dies, what is it that meets God?

Basically, having done all that, I suspect you are merely pranking my tank!

According to Whitehead, God is the primordial entity that holds all other entities together-- that is, if we can say entity here without being accused of reification. W. sees an entity as a point of information.
Spinoza sees God as the whole, of which everything else is a part.
I see God as a personal need, a default position of certainty when all else fails.

Because?

That’s interesting. So, why would a default position based on need be one of “certainty”? That is neither logically nor intuitively obvious.

Where is the knowledge in any of these suppositions and suppositories?

How anything has been devised and discovered remains forever behind the scenes, in the filthy, badly lit kitchen, as it were. Perspectives, instead of being explained, are stamped with an author - lo and behold, everybody has cooked up his own accidental perspective, his own fixed idea, by which we implicitly want to measure not the idea, but the chef to whom it belonged. Popular beauty contests on television are more charitable to the participant and the spectator than the activists of babble-theology, whose opinions are made to contest one another in the most vulgar way imaginable: for the sake of promoting the author and his unique brand of slavish opinionation. As for the essential act of thinking about God (all accidental opinions want to falsely claim this as their origin), it is promoted little or not at all, as we are forced to observe in ourselves the sad reality of the age in which if a man has one or two such thoughts in his entire life, he’s to be counted among the very lucky.

To have thoughts about God in this latter sense, you understand, does require that one act alone, and indeed that one stops acting altogether.

Some conversation about God! One look at the competing cooks and we are all in danger of losing our appetite.

-WL

The only thing I can gather on god is that god is essentially whatever you want it to be, ranging from not existing at all to the most powerful and overbearing element of existence.

Does that range include a loving deity?

How can existential angst be connected to a because? Tomes on this have never explained it. My perhaps-- because we who face the certainty of death seem to require a certainty of beliefs–a certainty based on something unquestionable. Religion, philosophy and science reveal this need. They are searches for certainty.

It is the need that is intuitive, even if illogical. Whatever you name the need, and the names are most often social-personal ego affirmations, it persists. The default position is to get beneath the cluttered relativisms of disparate faiths and their battles over what should be conserved and address the need. If I address it with a view of God as the glue that holds all things together, that is just another stab in the dark. If the stab works, I can call it light. For me, God is the whole of energy-matter exchanges, which include me. That’s a Spinozan idea; and it make religion a matter of understanding the economy and ecology of ecosystems.

Because phenomena have causes. Why should there be existential angst?

So why not this?

I see no God as a personal need, a default position of certainty.

Ochaye,
Simply because socioeconomic religions, philosophies and sciences do not provide any sense of certainty. Alan Watts wrote of the wisdom of insecurity, a nice approach to creative possibilities; but, insecurity has a definite negative side.
Why quibble over words? You could call the God concept first cause, the whole, the glue of all existing things, the energy-matter transformations, whatever, and you would still be talking about the human need for certainty inthe teeth of death.

Every species needs and uses the catagory of things related to certainty.
That doesn’t have to equate to a sudden theism.

Theories on higher beings is not all about certainty,
it’s about ontology. It’s part of metaphysics.

But why is there any necessary sense of uncertainty?

The statement ‘I see God as a personal need, a default position of certainty’ seems no more valid than ‘I see no God as a personal need, a default position of certainty’. But there does not seem to be any a priori reason to insist that it is inevitable to have to take one or other position.

Or the wisdom of nonchalance; or the wisdom of making ends meet to the end of the week, which the majority of humanity is concerned about, without any perceived need to possess certainty about any possible existence after this one.

Absolutely.

Here you give a series of logically disconnected statements. It’s arguable that some of the statements might be most worthy of discussion on their own, but none of them – either separately or together – answer my question.

What might help is a good definition of what a “default position” actually is per se. I can’t help but think of it as the place humans go when they feel as though they can go nowhere else, in the case of this discussion, to “God.” I would agree that many humans do this, and I would suggest that it’s more a matter of psychology than philosophy, though I think another offshoot of this need to look to God as the default position could impact the question of free will and determinism in a big way also. In other words, how is it that humans are brought to that “default position” of God or nothing?

As to what “God” - is - , that’s another question entirely. You seem to be all over the place on this, so I don’t know what to say exactly. It seems as though the “God” people look to in the “default position” based on “need” is some sort of complex mix of glue and Spinozan-derived energy-matter exchanges. A good idea for the purposes of clarification would be to correlate your statements with appropriate links and quotes so we can see exactly what Spinoza said and how it relates to your unconnected statements. That might also provide you with the energy and the direction to connect your ideas and statements in a meaningful way.

Remember my original question was based on unclear predicating ideas in the first place, since we never had any idea of what was meant by “default position,” “need,” and “certaintly,” and based on your reply, we still don’t.

Here you give a series of logically disconnected statements. It’s arguable that some of the statements might be most worthy of discussion on their own, but none of them – either separately or together – answer my question.

What might help is a good definition of what a “default position” actually is per se. I can’t help but think of it as the place humans go when they feel as though they can go nowhere else, in the case of this discussion, to “God.” I would agree that many humans do this, and I would suggest that it’s more a matter of psychology than philosophy, though I think another offshoot of this need to look to God as the default position could impact the question of free will and determinism in a big way also. In other words, how is it that humans are brought to that “default position” of God or nothing?

As to what “God” - is - , that’s another question entirely. You seem to be all over the place on this, so I don’t know what to say exactly. It seems as though the “God” people look to in the “default position” based on “need” is some sort of complex mix of glue and Spinozan-derived energy-matter exchanges; but whether this is actually the “God” that different people look to in the default position is rather unlikely considering that “God” can mean different things to different people. Also, a good idea for the purposes of clarification would be to correlate your statements with appropriate links and quotes so we can see exactly what Spinoza said and how it relates to your unconnected statements. That might also provide you with the energy and the direction to connect your ideas and statements in a meaningful way.

Remember my original question was based on unclear predicating ideas in the first place, since we never had any idea of what was meant by “default position,” “need,” and “certaintly,” and based on your reply, we still don’t.