What is God?

[Logos]

Logos:

logic is a manmade language that man uses to help him keep order in his communications, reasonings, and interactions.
God may or may not be a manmade concept that man uses to help him keep order in his communications, reasonings, and interactions.

Excellent, because this can be further dissected in fun and creative ways. Logic is indeed a sort of language, but all languages operate by a series of rules and structure. Likewise, logic also exists within set rules and parameters. Now there is more argumentative logic, but there is also what is perceived as the natural logic of the universe, or the logical integrity of properties of the universe. But the difference between the two is observation and the burden of proof. Logic is tool for proof, whereas theists assert that God merely is, which is hardly a logical proof.

God exists as concept whose rules are in a constant state of flux as people seek to redefine God around their changing logical perceptions and whose nature has been in debate. Read many of the most influential theologians in history and you will see their underlying problem with which they are faced. They are trying to fit the concept of God within the realm of logic, and they are not trying to fit the concept of logic within the realm of God. This is why the burden of proof will always be on theists to prove in the existence of God.

(And please for the love of theism, stop using "him" as a pronoun to describe both God and humankind. If you are going to be a theist, at least be a good one.)

logic is often treated as "the Ultimate Truth"; "the Light"; and "the Way"
God is often called "the Ultimate Truth"; "the Light" and "the Way"

Logic is not the "Ultimate Truth"; "the Light"; or "the Way"; logic is a tool, but then again so is God. :wink: For theists, God exists as the Ultimate Truth, so there is no need to pursue the subject further than that. Logic is a measurement of structural and factual integrity which is used to discover the Ultimate Truth and to which even God's existence itself (or lack thereof) is subject to scrutiny.

God is used to explain the underlying structure of all of creation
Logic is used to explain the underlying structure of all of creation

Yes, but one explanation is substantially more meaningful than the other in the well-being in the long-term of humanity. A theist can stop merely at "God created the universe," but the scientist (not saying that scientists and theists are mutually exclusive) must always go farther with the explanation because there is always more to learn. Besides, logic is not often used "to explain the underlying structure of all creation," but science is. Logic is merely the tool or measurement by which science must pass. And God also must pass the test of logic. Even for believers, they have to find reason to believe in God, but that does not mean that their belief is entirely rational. Would you not also agree that God must be logically coherent? Why do you think that the problem of evil, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence have posed themselves as inherent problems to philosophers and theologians alike? How can God exist as expressed by A, if by being A God would contradict the principle of B and C?

Promoters of God say that God represents Ultimate Good, and logic represents Ultimate Evil
Promoters of Logic say that Logic represents Ultimate Good, and god represents Ultimate Evil

Actually, I would say that it would be more like:
- Promoters of God say that God represents Ultimate Good, and logic (of the universe and within the holy texts, etc.) will naturally point in the necessary existence of God. "Evil" is merely that which acts in opposition to the obtaining of salvation in a given religion: materiality, sin, etc.
- Promoters of Logic say that Logic represents a neutral or approach or tool which helps discern the structural integrity of concepts, knowledge, and rationality and God represents an irrational and logically incoherent concept with no observable evidence for support. Therefore, God is not evil in anymore than a concept can be "evil," but that the adherents of the beliefs of God are in fact superstitiously irrational.

and regarding archetypes:
"God" is an archetype for various concepts and activities
"gods and goddesses" are archetypes for various concepts and activities
"science" is an archetype for various concepts and activities
personality types are archetypes for various concepts and activities

Science is not an archetype; it's a subject matter. But excluding this logical fallacy, I will play your game.
- "gods and goddesses" are archetypes for various concepts and activities ascribed to unobservable supernatural characters.
- "personality types" are archetypes for various concepts and activities ascribed to observable human characters.

whether or not someone personifies the archetypes is perhaps the only difference between worshipers of a diety vs worshipers of a concept but it doesn't change that they are both worshipers

Where are my scientific rules of worship then? I did not know I had to pray in the direction of the Galapagos Islands five times a day. Worship itself exists as more than mere belief in the correctness of a concept as any good theist will tell you.

nor does it change that each group has it's "knights"
nor does it change that they are in competition

Of course they are in competition, because theism is an outdated concept which is completely illogical and irrational, and coming apart at the seams.

The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to change the nature of logic and science such that it exists with the same problems and goals as religion, when in fact they do not. For example, you say that God is the Ultimate Truth, and then you try and argue that scientists view logic the same way as if that would make both equally acceptable paths.

[anndelise]

Right but consider: personal knowledge. And if I'm not mistaken, don't most people hear interpret sprituality as an expression of their 7th function? : absolute truth; : eternal winner; : eternal shared beliefs; : persistent perceptions of reality; : feelings that run forever; : unbreakable ties between people; : unshakable belief in a possibility; : your eternal allegiance to a belief.

i have no idea what that means, what you want me to consider, how you came up with this 7th function = spirituality thing, nor how any of this ties in with what you quoted.

[Logos]

I don't think any of that is true, Ann, but particularly this part:

Promoters of Logic say that Logic represents Ultimate Good, and god represents Ultimate Evil

reads more like some kind of a forwarded chain email than anything I've ever heard anyone who doesn't believe in god say.

notice Logo's attitude towards the concept of belief in God. Elsewhere Phaedrus has responded harsher.

I am curious as to what I am supposed to discern from this. Does this implicate a divide between and or is there something else you are attempting to imply? (BTW, it is merely Logos as in Greek for "the Word" or "Reason" and not Logo's as in graphical brand marketing.)

Logic pushers would never state that god represents the Ultimate Evil, but many Logic pushers push that the belief in God has lead to a downfall of mankind, (kind of like how many God believers push the concept of the Devil), and that it prevents the growth of their own belief system aka "Logic" or "science". These are the same arguments various religious pushers have used to encourage the growth and support of their own institution.

But conversely, faulty logic in the belief of any ideology has also lead to similar problems. Logic in itself is merely a tool of measurement, it is not an inherent belief.

I am not suggesting that ALL Logic pushers do this, nor that ALL God pushers do the other. Merely that their actions and majority of their words are extremely similar.

Yes, the commonalities of religious philosophic language. And you are not the only person who has noted the similarities in religious language between most atheist and theist philosophers. Feminist philosopher of religion, Grace Jantzen, also made note of this in her work Becoming Divine.

You missed the point entirely.

Ideology is ideology. And an ideology created for the purpose of having something to oppose is just lame. Calling my gods weak in order to validate your opposition is also lame. Unlike you, I do not presuppose the creation of a universe. And I have little use for concepts such as a supreme entity, heaven, and heavenly hosts for explaining this supposed creation. To be honest, I don't see how any of this is even relevant.

Could you clarify your statement, because I have no idea where you are getting these assertions in your argument here or what I might have said from which you could have implied what you did. After which, I will be able to better adequately respond.

[anndelise]

Logos,

I gave possible answers to Diana's question.
You responded to my answers in such a way that I felt compelled to offer how I see things.
I already stated that I do not consider myself a promotor for either God nor Logic....just clearer communications. So I have no desire to behave like a good little Theist...because I'm not and have no desire to be a Theist. I'll use "he" if I choose to

Much of what you said near the top of your not so last response to me, and in a couple of your response to others elsewhere suggest a sense of Faith in the rightness of your beliefs. I will not argue against your Faith. I believe you have just as much right to have Faith in Logic/Science as others have Faith in God/Goodness of Humanity.

edited to add "not so last response to me"..we overwrote each other.

[Expat]

Right but consider: personal knowledge. And if I'm not mistaken, don't most people hear interpret sprituality as an expression of their 7th function? : absolute truth; : eternal winner; : eternal shared beliefs; : persistent perceptions of reality; : feelings that run forever; : unbreakable ties between people; : unshakable belief in a possibility; : your eternal allegiance to a belief.

i have no idea what that means, what you want me to consider, how you came up with this 7th function = spirituality thing, nor how any of this ties in with what you quoted.

Well, it works for me - that is, I see spirituality as = eternal allegiance to a belief. If it works for others, then hats off to tcaudilllg.

[anndelise]

Tangent:
btw, Logos, as i reread your recent posts, i can't help but smile
your posts feel as if you're energized by this conversation or the topic, or a combo, i don't know....i just get a sense of you being energized.

i love when people are energized about something

[.thursday]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

[anndelise]

i have no idea what that means, what you want me to consider, how you came up with this 7th function = spirituality thing, nor how any of this ties in with what you quoted.

Well, it works for me - that is, I see spirituality as = eternal allegiance to a belief. If it works for others, then hats off to tcaudilllg.

What does this have to do with my not understanding his post?

[Expat]

Uh, nothing

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[cracka]

(BTW, it is merely Logos as in Greek for "the Word" or "Reason" and not Logo's as in graphical brand marketing.)

I've always found your choice of screen name interesting, because it brings to my mind "In the beginning was the word (logos) and the word was with God and the word was God." Goes well with the current discussion. . .

Soooo, Logos is God?!?!?!

kidding of course...lol

[XoX]

God is my autopilot.

I'm not sure if that is a joke or if you are serious but it is an interesting idea. However I wouldn't go that far. I would say God is my perfectly optimized GPS. As in he shows me the direction but I have to do the actual travel myself. And I can choose to take another route but then it is easy to get lost and I'm responsible for the consequences (for disobeying my GPS). However if I rebel and take a rebellious route and find myself lost my GPS is always ready to calculate a new route if I'm just willing to listen.

[cracka]

God is my autopilot.

I'm not sure if that is a joke or if you are serious but it is an interesting idea. However I wouldn't go that far. I would say God is my perfectly optimized GPS. As in he shows me the direction but I have to do the actual travel myself. And I can choose to take another route but then it is easy to get lost and I'm responsible for the consequences (for disobeying my GPS). However if I rebel and take a rebellious route and find myself lost my GPS is always ready to calculate a new route if I'm just willing to listen.

This is actually pretty clever.

[Slava]

Dawkins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54


LOL... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

[.thursday]

link warzzz

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf_...%2019.2.05.pdf

lol @ that second vid slava

[Logos]

Tangent:
btw, Logos, as i reread your recent posts, i can't help but smile
your posts feel as if you're energized by this conversation or the topic, or a combo, i don't know....i just get a sense of you being energized.

i love when people are energized about something

Well thank you.

I've always found your choice of screen name interesting, because it brings to my mind "In the beginning was the word (logos) and the word was with God and the word was God." Goes well with the current discussion. . .

Yes and no. I thought that Logos (Greek for word or reason) would be an appropriate name for a dominant as well as a nice tie-in with my general interest in Gnosticism, which certainly influenced the Gospel of John. But Logos is a broad term which has had multiple meanings attributed to it throughout the ages of Plato, Stoicism, Gnosticism, and Christianity.

Logos,

Kioshi: I think any entity that is invoked is rightfully called a god.
Slava: That would make police gods.
Kioshi: It is police power that is invoked. The authority to exercise that power is delegated to policemen. What is the basis of that power and authority?

Okay, how is this related?

Kioshi: I think it is funny that people who subscribe to the concept of archetypes would be dissing people's gods.
Logos: I thing it is funny that you find these two unrelated concepts and ideas to somehow be ironically related and then use this weak assertion as a means to try and undercut the point of the oppositional voice. Well the moment that Socionics theorists start describing the creation of the universe by the Supreme LII and its heavenly host of ESE, then we will talk.

Yes...

OK. Let's skip the assumptions I made. You start by making false claims about my intentions.

1) You have not made much of an argument. 2) You still have not made your intentions clear.

Then you make any further discussion contingent on some irrelevant event. What's the point?

To humorously illustrate that there is a difference between the conception of personality archetypes and the beliefs ascribed to the entity of god.

NiFe is an archetype. The archetype is a non-material entity. I identify with that archetype. The process of self-identification is a form of invocation. How can you possibly not see the connection?

So archetypes are a form of god? I am still not getting what you are trying to convey.

link warzzz

Hold that thought. I will not get around to it today or tonight, but I will try to respond to Swinburne tomorrow or the next few days. Until then, I am not going to add another 15 page essay to my mix of required reading for tonight.

[.thursday]

i'm not in the mood for a giant back and forth internet argument. i was just posting links for mysticsonic if he was interested in reading some theistic perpsectives. however if you do get to a write up of swinburnes little paper i would enjoy reading it. i appreciate your thoroughness of understanding/thought on this subject, howevermuch i disagree with you.

[Logos]

i'm not in the mood for a giant back and forth internet argument. i was just posting links for mysticsonic if he was interested in reading some theistic perpsectives. however if you do get to a write up of swinburnes little paper i would enjoy reading it. i appreciate your thoroughness of understanding/thought on this subject, howevermuch i disagree with you.

Well I do not plan to have an argument, but I do enjoy discussing the philosophy of religion.

An interesting note to all of this from an LII perspective is that two prominent theistic INTjs (Kant and C.S. Lewis) both use the moral and divine justice argument for the existence of God, which are relatively weak arguments. So as an aside, I wonder why these LIIs settle for the argument that would seemingly go against their own sense of ? Not unless universal morality represented an appeal to their attraction to that is.

[.thursday]

i think cs lewis was intp? he abandoned naturalism because he realized it made all logical inferences meaningless, because they are just the effects in a long cause and effect chain since the big bang, so you couldn't even trust the logical inference that naturalism was true. it was just another chemical event, not a meaningful inference. thats where his theism began, with his rejection of naturalism.

doesn't exclude theism, as long as the arrangement of ideas makes sense, and doesn't seem self-contradicting. what type do you think swinburne is?

http://www.apollos.ws/richard-swinburne2/

[Logos]

NiFe is an archetype. The archetype is a non-material entity. I identify with that archetype. The process of self-identification is a form of invocation. How can you possibly not see the connection?

So archetypes are a form of god? I am still not getting what you are trying to convey.

If it is invoked, then yes it's a god.

Then what do you mean by "invoke"?

[niveK]

I'm not sure how one would invoke a archetype. However, one can invoke a law. Does that make a law a god? I don't think this definition for a god is very good. It lacks specificity and leans entirely on the meaning of another word that has a somewhat wide variety of meanings.

[Slacker]

ok so you come up with this really silly definition of the word "god", and then you use that definition to argue your point. Clever.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Some people (including philosophers) define god as 'the greatest being which exists' or similar - if that's the definition, then god always exists, even if not in the normal sense. The problem with that is, the greatest being which exists could be a human etc. - which of course, is going to be subjective to opinion (so maybe the definition should be 'the greatest being which exists in someone's opinion'), and the usual meaning of god (at least the one we possibly envision, even if the dictionary doesn't ) is something which is an one of kind, i.e. not peerless as with humans.

Also, the baggage associated with the word 'god' means that the definition should be attached to a different word (i.e. existence shouldn't be considered a vital part of a perfect being - words describe things which don't necessarily exist in reality - words can be used to define something abstract, but they don't 'prove' the existence of those objects).

[Not A Communist Shill]

God has been defined as the Ultimate Truth etc. - but the concept of Logos in the Biblical sense is that the Word of god is incorruptible etc. - i.e. should be accepted unconditionally - if you believe this, it's not surprising you see god as the Ultimate Truth.

Scientists see logic as the Ultimate Truth because there is nothing better than it - but they recognise that it is not necessarily incorruptible. This is better than using god because their truths are empirical - using god to explain everything solves everything straight away for a religious person, but to a scientist\philosopher, god is problematic - not only do you have the unlikelihood of such an exceptional\perfect being to justify (i.e. through evidence), you also have an additional being whose existence is unknown.

Philosophers have no way of proving (yet?) that something can have an infinite regress (i.e. something is capable of existing without a creator), but even if they did, it wouldn't prove the existence of god - if god is capable of existing without a creator, then so is the universe, and by Occam's Razor, the simplest answer which fits the evidence (i.e. doesn't contradict it) is the best - as god adds to the chain of events without providing evidence for his existence, it is more plausible that the universe (which we can observe) has no creator, than to assume god created it.

David Hume said miraculous events need miraculous evidence - a miracle is something which occurs against the law of nature - by definition, if a 'miracle' happens, it isn't a miracle because it happened under the laws of nature (obviously). (and...)

Hume understands a miracle to be any event which contradicts the laws of nature. He argues that the laws of nature have an overwhelming body of evidence behind them, and are so well demonstrated to everyone's experience, that any deviation from those laws necessarily flies in the face of all evidence.
Moreover, he stresses that talk of the miraculous has no surface validity, for four reasons. First, he explains that in all of history there has never been a miracle which was attested to by a wide body of disinterested experts. Second, he notes that human beings delight in a sense of wonder, and this provides a villain with an opportunity to manipulate others. Third, he thinks that those who hold onto the miraculous have tended towards barbarism. Finally, since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous -- that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle -- any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating.
Still, Hume takes care to warn that historians are generally to be trusted with confidence, so long as their reports on facts are extensive and uniform. However, he seems to suggest that historians are as fallible at interpreting the facts as humans are. Thus, if every historian were to claim that there was a solar eclipse in the year 1600, then though we might at first naively regard that as in violation of natural laws, we'd come to accept it as a fact. But if every historian were to assert that Queen Victoria was observed walking around happy and healthy after her funeral, and then interpreted that to mean that they had risen from the dead, then we'd have reason to appeal to natural laws in order to dispute their interpretation.

[Logos]

I suppose if one invokes a law, then that law is a god. But I don't think it's that simple. It is not the law that is invoked. It is the power and authority of that law. And whatever the basis is for that power and authority is the god.

Replace the word "god" with "society" and then reread my first post in this thread about the Durkheim-Feuerbach Theorum.

Because otherwise it is as Slacker Mom says, a "really silly definition of the word "god", and then you use that definition to argue your point. Clever."

[Grek0]

And when good things happen, it's God. And when bad things happen, where is your God? Does he get equal credit for the bad? It's either "just the way things were meant to be" or worse, "the work of the devil" . Regardless of the fact that if God were omnipotent, that he could easily subdue the devil and said evil.

I find myself in agreement with several points in your post (of which the above is only a part). However, I noticed that with the above you basically refer to what is generally known as the Christian conception of God as the source of "good", with "bad" having nothing to do with it. In other religions and systems of thought, whatever is called "God" contains both all that is "good" and "bad". In that sense, 'God' can be whatever lies beyond, but is able to generate and contain, such dichotomies. I wonder if the creation of such concepts that split everything that is into two mutually exclusive parts serves a purpose. If there is somekind of feedback going back to where they originated, God, and altering its nature. If that is true, perhaps us humans were created as those parts of "God" who can consciously experience the two halves of everything. After all, we created "justice", "morality", "compassion" etc. These seem to exist only when perceived through a human spectrum - we have difficulty imagining an abstract "idea" of Justice floating around in the void. What "God" would get out of all this, who knows? But if there is such a thing/entity, whatever, and the above stand, i would imply God is still evolving