3 ms·

> For day-to-day operations, believing in such an entity is 'fine', as carrying around some more complicated idea can bog one down. Most of us don't have degree

> For day-to-day operations, believing in such an entity is 'fine', as carrying around some more complicated idea can bog one down. Most of us don't have degrees in philosophy and metaphysics. Newtonian physics and gravity is fine for most of us as well; no need to get into Einstein. The only thing I'd say about this is that the omni-God which is everything and being itself is actually less complicated than the God in the bible or any other holy book, who said and did certain things and did not say or do certain other things. A God who's nature is constrained for some reason, even if that reason is beyond our understanding. That God, which I think I'm safe in guessing is the God that most theistic people believe in, is much more complicated than the "superlative" God. I understand the line of reasoning that makes "God" into a word that refers to everything. I get where Aquinas is coming from. As somebody who no longer believes in any god or gods, I even agree with him to a far greater extent than I agree with most theists. However, I think that what Aquinas describes is different enough from what "God" means to most theists to merit a different term. Christians are relatively new to the game of God-making; they can't just say that everybody else has got it wrong. > That fact we use the term "god(s)" for them as well as the Christian God is an artefact of language. I disagree; I think it's an artifact of history. The Christian God is the Jewish God, and the Jewish God was comparable to the gods of other cultures. Specific entity, specific communiques, specific intent. The "artifact of language" arises much, much later: It is Aquinas and others attempting to use the word "God", which has an ancient meaning, to describe a totally abstract metaphysical concept.

pksebben 6y ago
the wikipedia hole that begins with "Yaweh" will probably be interesting to you. I found it enlightening - the progression of a monotheism from a polytheist pantheon reads much like a sort of narrative branch-then-retcon. I'm also tempted to draw a parallel with the hard sciences, though. As the thinking matures and evolves on the shape of a theology, you reduce the fluff and get rid of ideas that no longer fit your concept of reality. Part of the trend we might be seeing with church numbers is that christianity as we know it may have written themselves into a corner. I'm a particular fan of buddhist concepts of the divine for their ability to be abstracted into many different contexts. they tend not to touch things that can be disproven (yet), and by dealing with only the absolutely intangible, stay relevant. the problem space is limited to the utility of the thought. Stick to the metaphysical and you don't risk dissolution when you do things like make unqualified statements about what makes "God" angry.
throw0101a 6y ago
> The only thing I'd say about this is that the omni-God which is everything and being itself is actually less complicated than the God in the bible [...] The (Catholic) Christian God is not everything. That God is being itself. And that God is the God of the Old and New Testament. > However, I think that what Aquinas describes is different enough from what "God" means to most theists to merit a different term. Most believers are not theologians and philosophers, so the day-to-day mental of a Bearded Dude in the Sky may be good enough. > It is Aquinas and others attempting to use the word "God", which has an ancient meaning, to describe a totally abstract metaphysical concept. Which is why we get into things like Unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) Aristotle, whom Aquinas draws inspiration from, may view the Unmoved Mover as more of a concept. But the Christian God is not a concept, but a person (or persons, given the Trinity), which is seeking a personal relationship with each of us.

pksebben 6y ago

the wikipedia hole that begins with "Yaweh" will probably be interesting to you. I found it enlightening - the progression of a monotheism from a polytheist pantheon reads much like a sort of narrative branch-then-retcon. I'm also tempted to draw a parallel with the hard sciences, though. As the thinking matures and evolves on the shape of a theology, you reduce the fluff and get rid of ideas that no longer fit your concept of reality. Part of the trend we might be seeing with church numbers is that christianity as we know it may have written themselves into a corner. I'm a particular fan of buddhist concepts of the divine for their ability to be abstracted into many different contexts. they tend not to touch things that can be disproven (yet), and by dealing with only the absolutely intangible, stay relevant. the problem space is limited to the utility of the thought. Stick to the metaphysical and you don't risk dissolution when you do things like make unqualified statements about what makes "God" angry.

throw0101a 6y ago

> The only thing I'd say about this is that the omni-God which is everything and being itself is actually less complicated than the God in the bible [...] The (Catholic) Christian God is not everything. That God is being itself. And that God is the God of the Old and New Testament. > However, I think that what Aquinas describes is different enough from what "God" means to most theists to merit a different term. Most believers are not theologians and philosophers, so the day-to-day mental of a Bearded Dude in the Sky may be good enough. > It is Aquinas and others attempting to use the word "God", which has an ancient meaning, to describe a totally abstract metaphysical concept. Which is why we get into things like Unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) Aristotle, whom Aquinas draws inspiration from, may view the Unmoved Mover as more of a concept. But the Christian God is not a concept, but a person (or persons, given the Trinity), which is seeking a personal relationship with each of us.