Anyone intersted in discussing ontological god?

[Mr. J]

I find that often believers use philosophical arguments to "prove god". Thats ok, i think many of these arguments are interesting. But where i think they completely fail is when they say that the god they proved is the same as the god stated in their mythology.

I think the person that most simply showed that these two gods were not the same thing was Spinoza. What comments do you have toward his argument in the appendix of ethics part I?

[Mr. J]

some quick excerpts for those opposed to long reading:

first what he thinks he has previously shown:

In the foregoing I have explained the nature and properties of God. I have shown that he necessarily exists, that he is one : that he is, and acts solely by the necessity of his own nature ; that he is the free cause of all things, and how he is so ; that all things are in God, and so depend on him, that without him they could neither exist nor be conceived ; lastly, that all things are predetermined by God, not through his free will or absolute fiat, but from the very nature of God or infinite power. I have further, where occasion afforded, taken care to remove the prejudices, which might impede the comprehension of my demonstrations. Yet there still remain misconceptions not a few, which might and may prove very grave hindrances to the understanding of the concatenation of things, as I have explained it above. I have therefore thought it worth while to bring these misconceptions before the bar of reason.

reasons for misconceptions about god (bold parts added by me):

All such opinions spring from the notion commonly entertained, that all things in nature act as men themselves act, namely, with an end in view. It is accepted as certain, that God himself directs all things to a definite goal (for it is said that God made all things for man, and man that he might worship him). I will, therefore, consider this opinion, asking first, why it obtains general credence, and why all men are naturally so prone to adopt it? secondly, I will point out its falsity ; and, lastly, I will show how it has given rise to prejudices about good and bad, right and wrong, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and ugliness, and the like. However, this is not the place to deduce these misconceptions from the nature of the human mind : it will be sufficient here, if I assume as a starting point, what ought to be universally admitted, namely, that all men are born ignorant of the causes of things, that all have the desire to seek for what is useful to them, and that they are conscious of such desire. Herefrom it follows, first, that men think themselves free inasmuch as they are conscious of their volitions and desires, and never even dream, in their ignorance, of the causes which have disposed them so to wish and desire. Secondly, that men do all things for an end, namely, for that which is useful to them, and which they seek. Thus it comes to pass that they only look for a knowledge of the final causes of events, and when these are learned, they are content, as having no cause for further doubt. If they cannot learn such causes from external sources, they are compelled to turn to considering themselves, and reflecting what end would have induced them personally to bring about the given event, and thus they necessarily judge other natures by their own. Further, as they find in themselves and outside themselves many means which assist them not a little in the search for what is useful, for instance, eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, herbs and animals for yielding food, the sun for giving light, the sea for breeding fish, &c., they come to look on the whole of nature as a means for obtaining such conveniences. Now as they are aware, that they found these conveniences and did not make them, they think they have cause for believing, that some other being has made them for their use. As they look upon things as means, they cannot believe them to be self-created ; but, judging from the means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with human freedom, who have arranged and adapted everything for human use. They are bound to estimate the nature of such rulers (having no information on the subject) in accordance with their own nature, and therefore they assert that the gods ordained everything for the use of man, in order to bind man to themselves and obtain from him the highest honor. Hence also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself, according to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root in the human mind ; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain the final causes of things ; but in their endeavor to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e. nothing which is useless to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men are all mad together.

WOW! thats all i can say. I have to say im incredibly impressed by this line of reasoning.

[Onyiiboy]

Just about every God is made in the image of its creators

[eby187]

Originally Posted by Onyiiboy

Just about every God is made in the image of its creators

sadly.

if god supposedly created you and all things, how can we define god? if god created logic wouldn't we suppose that he was beyond logic? therefore to experience god, wouldn't we have to go through the route of spirit...since god, if he or she exists, is spirit?

btw i do believe God exists, not because of my rational mind tho.

[RetiredEgo]

Originally Posted by eby187

sadly.

if god supposedly created you and all things, how can we define god? if god created logic wouldn't we suppose that he was beyond logic? therefore to experience god, wouldn't we have to go through the route of spirit...since god, if he or she exists, is spirit?

btw i do believe God exists, not because of my rational mind tho.

Rationality that doesn't find the One is...irrational.

[eby187]

Originally Posted by RetiredEgo

Rationality that doesn't find the One is...irrational.

Is it only through rationality that we can find the truth about anything? especially in a universe as expansive as ours?

[RetiredEgo]

Originally Posted by eby187

Is it only through rationality that we can find the truth about anything? especially in a universe as expansive as ours?

No, but I know that the One is so clear to see, flooding our rational mind and our non-rational mind. Infact our rationality itself is the One.

[eby187]

Originally Posted by RetiredEgo

No, but I know that the One is so clear to see, flooding our rational mind and our non-rational mind. Infact our rationality itself is the One.

I agree. He does express himself in all things...but for those whose physical senses and rational minds are not enough to prove the existence of God....

interestingly the same rational mind that proves God exists is the same rational mind that can disprove the existence of God. The mind is powerful, but not the ultimate. One's true self, (soul, spirit) is higher than the mind, and knows more than the mind may even fathom. For a person who only believes in the mind and not the soul or spirit, proving God exists with the rational debate of the mind alone is not enough, unfortunately .

[RetiredEgo]

It's not about proof or disproof. The rational mind is God.

[eby187]

Originally Posted by RetiredEgo

It's not about proof or disproof. The rational mind is God.

What do you mean by the rational mind is God? cos it could mean something positive or something dangerous depending on intent.

either way we may just agree to disagree, as usual. The God I know is not equivalent to the rational mind, he is beyond the rational mind. He is infinite. Nothing can ever grasp or contain the entirety of his being.

[RetiredEgo]

Originally Posted by eby187

What do you mean by the rational mind is God? cos it could mean something positive or something dangerous depending on intent.

either way we may just agree to disagree, as usual. The God I know is not equivalent to the rational mind, he is beyond the rational mind. He is infinite. Nothing can ever grasp or contain the entirety of his being.

Maybe u don't know the meaning of infinite, or you limit infinite to the finite part of it.

My infinte is infinite, hence God is the rational mind and beyond. God is all, and not God is none, and none is still God. So whoever doesn't notice that his thinking, both rational and irrational is God, is blinded...by God. To me.