For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I see what you're saying. I agree to an extent.

Anyone who talks about God is generating ideas about that God. Those ideas have the power to influence minds. Atheists and theists and agnostics speak about God. So my question was: Who paints the most realistic picture of God?

reply to post by Aphorism


I am trying to work a way around the idea of god being a "magical super-being".
Maybe it just is.

Or what George Carlin termed "the all mighty electron!"

I think Einstein had it right. Pantheism is the way to go.

reply to post by JayinAR

I think Einstein had it right. Pantheism is the way to go.

I agree with that. Spinoza's account of God is still the best one out there.

Aphorism
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I see what you're saying. I agree to an extent.

Anyone who talks about God is generating ideas about that God. Those ideas have the power to influence minds. Atheists and theists and agnostics speak about God. So my question was: Who paints the most realistic picture of God?

Whoever wants the least from God. The person who wants the least from God is the person with the least desire to change him/her/it. That's why I don't trust many theists to know what they are talking about, because usually the most vocal believers are the ones who ask for so much from their magical sky faerie.

reply to post by Aphorism


And another interesting idea is that this reality may be holographic in nature. Science keeps pointing to this possibility.

If that is true, then is this all a thought process? How far does the observer effect extend? What I see in front of me right now is a wall and with a window. Beyond that I see buildings, trees, snow, and blue sky. But what is behind me at this very moment? I dunno. If this is a hologram of sorts, the reality is that behind me may be bits of code or something akin to the matrix and my perception provides the laser that interferes and produces the hologram.
Now considering everything, starting with atoms themselves are made up of mostly empty space, one must conclude that there are some very very powerful things at play that allow us to make sense of this digital playground/thought process that we consider god. And it filters down into our very being.

Aphorism
What if the word love is written on the inside? Would you still deny it?

Are you saying the word love written on paper is the same as actual love? So if I write the flying spaghetti monster down on paper that means he exists and his proof is on my paper?

Aphorism
reply to post by JayinAR

 

I think Einstein had it right. Pantheism is the way to go.

I agree with that. Spinoza's account of God is still the best one out there.

Can you explain how Spinoza views or relates to 'God'? How do you see that it is best?

reply to post by Buttonlip

Are you saying the word love written on paper is the same as actual love? So if I write the flying spaghetti monster down on paper that means he exists and his proof is on my paper?

What is actual love? Show me any person place or thing in the world that you can call love.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Basically that everything is God. We call it the universe now.

reply to post by Aphorism

What is actual love?

reply to post by Aphorism


IIRC, pantheism is a bit more like "The Force." And "The Force" only runs through the universe, rather than being the universe itself.

Panentheism includes both the medium (the universe) and "The Force" as part of the same whole.

Incredible how many labels there are for all of this... Especially considering the true vastness of opinion on it is truly summed when taking every individual perspective as its own "label" (rather than ones such as the above and including theism, deism, atheism, etc).

But people love to hold up their label as a flag, because it feels good to be a part of something. For some, it is perhaps more effective to be part of what is actually here and now, rather than a label which could never describe such a thing in its totality.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You can read it for yourself. Its rather short.
plato.stanford.edu...

It is basically a list of propositions. 15 of them that seek to establish god necessarily.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc
Then where did you first learn about god?

edit on 7-1-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)

When did I learn what about God?

reply to post by Serdgiam


It seems to me that theism has evolved to a reverent regard for qualities deemed to be admirable or honorable, rather than simple obeisance to a holy entity. I say evolved because this strikes me as a graduation from a societal reflection to a philosophical reflection that surpasses rank and title and delves into the understanding of the properties observed in life itself.

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Basically that everything is God. We call it the universe now.

Spinoza's view was basically Vedanta philosophy.
Check out Advaita Vedanta/non duality - one without a second.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I laughed.

JayinAR
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You can read it for yourself. Its rather short.
plato.stanford.edu...

It is basically a list of propositions. 15 of them that seek to establish god necessarily.

edit on 7-1-2014 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

What I really wanted was the OP to give his/her view on Spinozas God to hear how he/she has interpreted it.

I have already done the research.

reply to post by Aphorism


There's a first. And here I suspected you might be devoid of anything but the most abstract sense of humor.

reply to post by BDBinc


Sure. From where did you first learn about God?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Spinoza's view was basically Vedanta philosophy.

It is my view as well.