The "Omni-God"

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend, maybe "excuse," isn't the right word. Perhaps "justify" would be less contentious?

You can be as contentious as you want, but I am not excusing or justifying God. Just wondering aloud what he could be like.

True, I can't create a universe, and stuff like that, but that's not what we're talking about. In this context, we very easily could do what god does: stop trying to control people. That takes inaction, not action.

I can only repeat that God's moral role is not the same as mine. Therefore, God taking inaction has a different moral consequence than my taking inaction.

Why didn't you just say in the first place that you don't want to believe in God because then you might not be able to have whatever morality that you felt like having?

(It's sort of an a priori for this discussion that there is one, BTW. See the base post.)

The corrollary being: if one wants to have whatever morality that one feels like having, then one has to deny the existance of God.

Not a particular concern of mine, because, despite claims to the contrary, I don't think God handed us a morality and demanded we follow it. (If he did, there'd be no questions about his inaction.) It's just that I don't see the problem with having a morality that includes a God and thinks about what [S]He wants of us. We are, in the end, still the origin of the morality we choose. We're just a little less likely to choose our morality based on how advantageous it is for us. (Which to me would be the apex of immoral.)

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I don't know, WF. At a certain point the fact that people have a particular morality is a natural thing, is it not? Humans and the mind being natural phenomena of creation.

[aliantha]

What I think is cool about my view is that even though it sounds mythological and mystical, it's actually the literal truth. Every single word describes what actually happens in the universe where we have found ourselves coming into Being.

Oh, I agree with you. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that we share this reality with another level of beings whom we call, for lack of a better term, gods.

I don't get how you think the world can be literally filled with gods, but you scoff at the idea of chemicals producing a "spiritual" experience.

<shrug> You misunderstand. I'm not scoffing. You could be right. Maybe drugs do open up a gateway to other realities. I've never used them for that purpose and I don't think they're necessary for it -- hence the winky.

Then how you do know they're not just aliens?

<another shrug> Maybe they are. Depends on how you define alien, doesn't it?

Look, to be clear -- you're not talking to a rus-level fanatic here. I wouldn't presume to say that it's my way or the highway. I've simply had certain experiences, and defined/described them to my own satisfaction. I'm not proselytizing for Lugh or Brighid or Mokosh or anybody else.

Now, maybe humanity has imagined all this stuff about deities in order to feel less alone in the vastness of the Universe. Maybe we came up with the idea to describe the workings of the Universe, in lieu of truthful scientific explanations we hadn't yet discovered (I do believe this to be true, btw). But *none of that* precludes the possibility that we share the Universe with other beings.

The real difference between your stance and mine, Z, is that you've closed your mind to the possibility that those other beings exist. And that's cool. Whatever gets you through life.

All I'm saying, to get back to the original topic, is that your argument is based on a false choice. It doesn't have to be Omni-God v. Nobody. There are other options.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Another question worth asking, is why the God-spiritual archetypes exist in the first place. Why should humans have those potentialities of experience?

[wayfriend]

At a certain point the fact that people have a particular morality is a natural thing, is it not? Humans and the mind being natural phenomena of creation.

A fine question.

I would opine that that would only be true if we could see some amount of consistency in morality across the human spectrum. When I hear someone say that the epitome of goodness is leaving suffering people to suffer, I have to question that there is any consistency.

But then again, just because something is natural doesn't mean that it can't be overridden by the will of man. So maybe I should value consistency less.

Which leads to the question, is natural morality (if there is one) something primitive, that is replaced by a civilized morality, in the same way we subvert our natural tendencies in favor of civilized manners?

I would think that one would have to.

Then again, whose to say that civilization isn't natural?

Gah.

[Zarathustra]

Ali, I haven't closed my mind to anything. All my beliefs are tentative. I welcome correction. I'd love for god and immortality to be real. If someone can show me evidence, I'd gladly accept it.

And yes, I can tell you're not dogmatic or overbearing in your own beliefs. I respect you for that.

Wayfriend, I acknowledge your position that you're not justifying/excusing god. My point about excuses wasn't aimed at you specifically, but thrown into the mix for discussion.

Why didn't you just say in the first place that you don't want to believe in God because then you might not be able to have whatever morality that you felt like having?

I didn't say it because that's not my positon. I would gladly give up my ability to choose my own morality if God/Heaven/immortality existed.

However, I believe we all end up choosing our own morality. Just because one adopts a pre-existing morality made up by someone else doens't mean that one isn't making a personal choice. It's just a less creative choice, relying upon a morality some other human(s) created ... and then promptly went about claiming it came from god.

We are, in the end, still the origin of the morality we choose.

Cool. Sounds like we agree on that point. Except that I'd say we're the origin of the choice, not necessarily the morality we choose, because most people end up choosing moralities created by others.

We're just a little less likely to choose our morality based on how advantageous it is for us. (Which to me would be the apex of immoral.)

Well, I disagree that this is the apex of immorality. There are lots of things that are good for me that aren't immoral. Developing my own potential to the fullest is a positive endeavor. I'd say that in the end the origin of the morality that we choose is still in some sense rooted in bettering ourselves, and since that is a self-oriented goal, "how advantageous it is for us" can't be eliminated from the equation. I don't think being immoral benefits us.

[Fist and Faith]

I bother if my morality insists that those acts are evil, and should not be. I don't bother if my morality doesn't have a problem with them. This is true whether or not there is any sort of creator or higher being.

I agree with everything except the last sentence. If there is a creator, then how can there be such a thing as "my morality?" How can we make our own rules if we are subject to the judgment of a higher being? Once you take an afterlife and criteria for getting there into account, you have to abandon the idea of relative morality.

No I don't. I don't agree with, for example, the morality that says homosexuality is a disease, a sin, etc. If it turns out the one, true God feels that way, it doesn't matter. I still know there's nothing wrong with it. God is wrong.

And if I'm subject to God's judgement, and my morality is going to be decided by how much I agree with God, then I guess I'm in trouble. But that doesn't change the fact that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. And I won't get to spend eternity with a God and bunch of people who think homosexuality is an abomination.

[Fist and Faith]

Good and evil are human constructs, guys. Ascribing so-called moral behavior to the Divine is like portraying God with a flowing white beard. You're just anthromorphizing what *is*.

Absolutely. I agree. But then take it one step further: why suppose a god at all? Isn't that the greatest anthropomorphizing of all that *is*?

And this is how god can be omni-. The complete abandonment of the concept of divine will, purpose, and the anthropomorphism of god. God realised to be nothing more than reality itself. Reality is omnipotent, because reality is all. Reality is omniscient, because reality is all. Reality is omnipresent, because reality is all.

This is, of course, what I believe, despite playing God's Advocate at times. Extremely well said.

[Fist and Faith]

God's not working on the same basis of morality as we are. NOT because morality is relative. Because God's role is not our role.

But (assuming God exists) shouldn't we try to model ourselves after God? If He's the source of morality, then shouldn't we use Him as our example, our exemplar of perfect behavior and thus our model as we strive to be more "holy" or "godly" rather than less so?

Or is God telling us, "Do as I say, not as I do"??

I think the idea is that, as wf has said, we can't do as God the Father, does. We can't behave as God the Father behaves. But (Christians believe) God the Son did show us how we should behave. Jesus is our example; our exemplar of perfect behavior; our model.

And I'm not going to try to explain how to reconcile what I, and probably you, see as some horrible acts on the Father's part with the Son's behavior. Partly because I don't like the whole thing. Partly because, as I've been saying, I can't imagine, and neither can anyone else, what it's like to be God, and how I would behave if I was. But yes, it seems to be God saying, "Do as I say, and behave as Jesus behaved."

[Zarathustra]

F&F, did Jesus judge people? Did he stop little kids from getting raped? I don't see much difference between Jesus and god, in this respect.

As for us being able to do what god (or Jesus) does ... I've addressed that above. In terms of this discusion, I'm talking about refraining from judgement and/or prevention. We can certainly do that. I don't necessarily think that we should ... I'm just pointing out the discrepancy between people who think it's our duty to do this, even though (apparently) god (or Jesus) doesn't do it ... [until after death, then all considerations of freewill are off--it's time to PAY].

[[Syl]]

The idea of Jesus as judge is relatively new in Christianity, coinciding with the end of one's life being the judgment time. About the 16th C., I believe. Before that, Jesus was all about love (relatively speaking) and death was a long rest. Amusingly enough, the reason so many Christians (and through enculturation, just about everyone else) have so much death anxiety is because of the rise of the English middle class.[/tangent]

[Fist and Faith]

I'm not sure what you mean, Z. Did Jesus witness a child being raped, and not stop it? (I don't know the Bible well enough.) If so, then that thought certainly falls apart.

[Orlion]

It really becomes a problem with certain concepts of sin. Specifically, the sin of omission. This is basically not doing something good that you were capable of doing. God is capable of doing a lot of good (at least as far as we see good), therefore his lack of action constitutes several sins of omission.

I'd also like to go on record to say that I don't agree with Lewis' stance on omnipotence. It intentionally limits the power of God, which, if omnipotent, is absurd.

I suppose out of all the 'omni' qualities, omnipotence is the one I object to mainstream religions using the most. Mainly because they don't actually believe. "God can do anything!....Except sin.... and forgive without the ritual sacrifice of some living thing....

[Fist and Faith]

This might be the only time I agree with Lewis. Heh. We might think we're clever coming up with a scenario to prove God isn't omnipotent, but we're not being at all clever. A square circle? The shape is the definition. You can't have both at the same time, and it wouldn't be a shortcoming of God's if he couldn't make one. And if, in his omnipotence, God did make one, we wouldn't know it if we saw it. What would it look like?

How about a male that gets pregnant and gives birth? Not a creature with the reproductive organs of both genders, mind you, but a male-only creature that gets pregnant and gives birth. If a male did, it would be because it was given female organs. Meaning it would no longer be male-only, and we'd complain about that. And if it happened without female reproductive organs (any number of sci-fi/fantasy scenarios would work), we would complain that it wasn't the kind of pregnancy and birth we were talking about, so it doesn't count.

[Vraith]

I suppose out of all the 'omni' qualities, omnipotence is the one I object to mainstream religions using the most. Mainly because they don't actually believe. "God can do anything!....Except sin.... and forgive without the ritual sacrifice of some living thing....

I can see that...but I think omniscience bugs me more. Cuz if you get right down to the nitty gritty, omniscience makes a travesty of any idea of god as good...it actually makes him/her/it outright vicious, unless one concedes that every human is completely wrong about absolutely everything. [in the One and only One God scenario. There is perhaps some wiggle room in multi-god versions.

[aliantha]

Ali, I haven't closed my mind to anything. All my beliefs are tentative. I welcome correction. I'd love for god and immortality to be real. If someone can show me evidence, I'd gladly accept it.

And yes, I can tell you're not dogmatic or overbearing in your own beliefs. I respect you for that.

All good to hear.

[Avatar]

I would gladly give up my ability to choose my own morality if God/Heaven/immortality existed.

Not me.

--A