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? — Alkis Piskas

Exactly. Kamis tend to be physically connected with nature and the environment. Some of the objects or phenomena designated as kami are qualities of growth, fertility, and production; natural phenomena like wind and thunder; natural objects like the sun, mountains, rivers, trees, and rocks; some animals; and ancestral spirits.
If one day you visit Japan, you would see in forests or mountains representations of kamis in tiny houses. Most of them are usually described with a Kanji related to nature. One of the I like the most is "kumori" which means "cloudy".

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

Yes, it is. I have been reading Japanese literature for the past two years and I perceive they are more sensitive than other cultures.

BTW, I love Japanese writing! These symbols, for me, are the most beautiful in all languages I know of. — Alkis Piskas

One of my main dreams is being capable of reading Japanese. I wish I can reach such objective one day. I am currently studying (by myself, autodidact) basic Japanese kanjis and hiragana, but I am so far away to read and understand all the symbols! :cry:

I have 4 Japanese scroll paintings in my living room. — Alkis Piskas

Interesting!

Temperament is very important. In my case I think experience does play a role, - I have been around too much suffering and death. But I am grateful for my own good health and fortune. Can't say I have ever felt like I belong anywhere, except maybe some jazz bar somewhere with a Sazerac and a freshly lit Lucky Strike... those day are long gone. If god stories involved booze and jazz clubs, I might have been a theist.

Can't say I have ever felt like I belong anywhere, except maybe some jazz bar somewhere with a Sazerac and a freshly lit Lucky Strike... those day are long gone. If god stories involved booze and jazz clubs, I might have been a theist. — Tom Storm

We're soul brothers, Tom, in the St.Germain-des-Pres, circa 1953. :cool:

:pray: :wink: Did you ever see that film 'Round Midnight with the great Dexter Gordon? I used to watch it regularly at an arthouse cinema near me, a flask filled with something nice in my pocket.

Yes, I loved it too.

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. — Benj96

I agree there are uses for person Gods. If that were not true, there wouldn't be so many of them. But I find it difficult to take them seriously. That easy to see (for me, at least) for the elephant and monkey Gods of India. I find Christian stories a bit more believable but not much.

No, confusion definitely doesn't excite me! It depresses me. Anyway that's off-topic as far as the thread is concerned. I wouldn't necessarily say that gods are fakes.

Kamis tend to be physically connected with nature and the environment. — javi2541997

OK. But if their nature is physical, shouldn't they be perceivable?

Well, I wonder if the same question applies to the gods of the Greek and other mythologies, who are usually considered "creatures", which by definition are physical! How can intelligent people --as I assume they were-- talk about "invisible" creatures?

The gods in the American Indian culture, on the orher hand, although they have names of animals, they are considered spirits, whish are not physical. Hats off to them! (And of course to all the other people, the culture of whom includes gods that are not physical in nature. E.g. the Australian aboriginal mythological spirits.)

We are talking here of course about gods in native cultures (from a historical viewpoint), not the religions that we have today, in which God is considered a spirit.

***

(For the rest, which is outside this topic, check your INBOX ...)

It seems to me that Earth’s person Gods are childish creations of human imagination. — Art48

Many of these images of deities were products of the 'childhood of civilisation'. The audience for them were agrarian peasants and nomadic wanderers many altogether outside civilisation at a vastly earlier period of history (or pre-history). Because they belong to a different era of humanity then naturally the kinds of imagery that will be meaningful to them is vastly different to the denizens of post-industrial technocratic culture. One of this civilisation's major problems is that it has outgrown its own mythos, resulting often in stark nihilism.

One of the standard philosophy of religion essays I often link to is John Hick, 'Who or What is God?' It's quite a dense read, but it is about just this subject. He says of the many different, and apparently conflicting, religious doctrines that

they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. This process of elaboration is one of philosophical or theological construction.

And considering the vast diversity of human cultures and languages then it's hardly surprising that there is a vast diversity of types of beliefs.

I appreciate Rupert Spira's description of god as 'old language' for the transcendent and 'oneness'.

‘The eternal’ never changes but its clothes wardrobe sure gets dated.

No, confusion definitely doesn't excite me! It depresses me. — Agent Smith

You can change your status quo. What has depressed you in the past can excite you in the future, if you choose to change your perspective, whilst using peer reviewed justifications for doing so.

I wouldn't necessarily say that gods are fakes. — Agent Smith

That's why we debate each other Mr Smith. :grin:

My God is unstable; I describe myself as a reluctant theist,

I agree with you, based on our exchanges, so what efforts are you making to try to stabilise your world viewpoints? If you continue to challenge your current position as a reluctant theist, then who can ask anymore of you? I hope the result of any challenge you set yourself, results in you becoming a very assured atheist. If it results on you becoming a very assured theist then, that's ok to but that just means any exchange between us on TPF, will remain respectfully combative.
I would suggest however that either result, is better than your current limbo state of reluctant theism.
No wonder you get depressed at times.

Well, you seem to be on the right track mon ami. I wouldn't want to derail you from your current journey.

I wouldn't want to derail you from your current journey. — Agent Smith

:up: I would only appreciate derailment, if you can PROVE I am on a track, travelling at great speed, and the rail runs out, at the top of a very large, very deep chasm. :scream:

Please proceed.

Your depth of care towards others, obviously, has no beginning bounds! :death: :flower:

Your depth of care towards others, obviously, has no beginning bounds! :death: — universeness

I try.

The OP explores an interesting topic, but I'm not equippedfor the discourse.

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 agree. But, considering the limited range of world experience of ancient people, it's understandable that even smart adult people would imagine their deity in concrete metaphors. The abstract hypothetical notion of an Eternal/Infinite ground-of-being would appeal only to a minority of abstract philosophical thinkers. Ultimates & Generalizations don't put food on the table. So the remote fleshless ghosts of hypothetical principles typically have little appeal to those whose Reality is limited to what they can see & touch. Ironically, that description fits some on this forum. :smile:

My God is unstable; I describe myself as a reluctant theist, — Agent Smith

Sounds like you are an Agnostic. Which is a legitimate philosophical position on the notion of an invisible causal force in the world. Are you also "reluctant" about Energy? Have you ever seen that omnipresent creative/destructive power? Or do you just take it on faith in the testimony of theoretical physicists?

According to most physicists, there is no such thing as Energy. It's merely a label for the Cause of physical Change. Like the concept of Creator, It's a mental metaphor, not a material object. Is that something you can believe in? :smile:

Agnostic :
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
__Google

Who is the Hindu god of creation and destruction? :
Brahma is the creator of the universe while Vishnu is the preserver of it. Shiva's role is to destroy the universe in order to re-create it. Hindus believe his powers of destruction and recreation are used even now to destroy the illusions and imperfections of this world, paving the way for beneficial change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/deities/shiva.shtml

Types of Energy :
Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy
Note -- Does that description of Eternal Energy sound suspiciously like a Hindu deity to you?

Interesting.