Two Types of Gods

Art48

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 Earth’s person Gods are childish creations of human imagination. On the other hand, the absolute, ultimate ground of existence God seems credible to me.

Comments?

Vera Mont

Sure, why not? The ineffable universal Light doesn't demand that you chop off your baby's foreskin or make your daughter cover her face in public. It doesn't ask for tithes, set up an army of arbiters of its will, declare entire nations heretical or insinuate itself into civil jurisprudence. A rational person can live alongside such a god.

unenlightened

Impersonal gods are not worth talking to or (therefore) talking about. Stick to physics, no impersonal god will care.

Ciceronianus

Impersonal gods are not worth talking to or (therefore) talking about. Stick to physics, no impersonal god will care. — unenlightened

If god is immanent in the universe, we talk about god all the time. Even physicists.

Fooloso4

Person Gods appear to be products of imagination. Impersonal Gods seem to converge to a single God — Art48

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.

T Clark

Impersonal gods are not worth talking to or (therefore) talking about. Stick to physics, no impersonal god will care. — unenlightened

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.

unenlightened

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 — T Clark

Something living but impersonal?

T Clark

Something living but impersonal? — unenlightened

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.

unenlightened

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. — T Clark

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.

T Clark

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? — unenlightened

If I intended to bite a bullet, which I don't, it wouldn't be for either of the choices you've offered.

Convince me that it is worth even speculating about this. — unenlightened

Convince me it is worth convincing you.

unenlightened

Convince me it is worth convincing you. — T Clark

It isn't.

universeness

↪unenlightened

↪T Clark

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.

It gives something to be grateful to for all we have been given — 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.

unenlightened

What if we haven't been GIVEN anything? — universeness

Then we have made it all ourselves.

Or else it has all just fallen to us.

There is no evidence — 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.

universeness

Then we have made it all ourselves.
Or else it has all just fallen to us. — unenlightened

I agree with your first sentence.

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. — 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 ..... ?

T Clark

It isn't. — unenlightened

I'm convinced.

T Clark

There is no evidence It exists or has done anything to deserve your thanks. — universeness

Someone, something, somewhere deserves thanks for this wonderful world.

universeness

↪T Clark

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.

180 Proof

↪Art48

E.g. (my) pandeus?

↪universeness

:up:

↪Vera Mont

:up:

Agent Smith

Somewhere along our journey, is (fact) and ought (hope) got mixed up.

T Clark

↪universeness

You and I see things differently.

universeness

↪T Clark

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.

Agent Smith

divinely hidden — universeness

IPU? :chin:

universeness

↪Agent Smith

No, divine hiddenness as described by such as the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Agent Smith

No, divine hiddenness as described by such as the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. — universeness

I intelligo ... these are confusing times.

universeness

↪Agent Smith

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:

Benj96

It seems to me that Earth’s person Gods are childish creations of human imagination. On the other hand, the absolute, ultimate ground of existence God seems credible to me. — Art48

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.

Alkis Piskas

↪Art48

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:

1*pd_gS7l9EjWu85s6iWy5eQ.jpeg

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.

javi2541997

Non-personified Gods, on the other hand, are more "realistic" and are usually depicted as energy, esp. light: — Alkis Piskas

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 (善狐, lit. 'good foxes') are benevolent, on the other hand, the yako (野狐, 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.

Alkis Piskas

↪javi2541997

All this is very interesting, Javi!

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. — 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:

Japanese culture tend to be sensitive with seasons and nature — javi2541997

I believe you mean more sensitive than in other cultures, right?

The zenko (善狐, lit. 'good foxes') are benevolent, on the other hand, the yako (野狐, lit. 'field foxes', also called nogitsune) tend to be mischievous or even malicious. — 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.

Japanese painting representing a kitsune under the moonlight — 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.

Tom Storm

Someone, something, somewhere deserves thanks for this wonderful world. — T Clark

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.

It seems to me that Earth’s person Gods are childish creations of human imagination. On the other hand, the absolute, ultimate ground of existence God seems credible to me. — 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.

T Clark

To me the world seems an amoral and dangerous place (at best). — Tom Storm

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.

Two Types of Gods

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions