The Personality of God

[PatThePoet]

A very loud atheist on YouTube (lost the link) says that God cannot possibly exist because everybody has a diffrent perception of Him. The atheist provided this example…

A believer from New York City or a more liberal area would think God is “cool” and accecpting of most everything.

While a believer in the Deep South would thik that God is wrathful and commends His people to stone all the homosexuals.

Thus that atheist concludes that because everybody who believes in a monothestic deity has a diffrent perception of Him, then God cannot exist. No universal God = No God at all.

Is there any truth to this claim? My faith could rest in this one question.

 

[Hastrman]

The fact there are multiple opinions about a thing has absolutely no effect on the reality or unreality of the thing itself.

Logically this is like saying, “There can’t be any particles, because there are so many contradictory interpretations of quantum theory,” or, “Money can’t exist, because there are so many economic theories.”

 

[minduser]

well, i was raised roman catholic, and i’m not eighteen yet. but recently in my mind and beliefs i’ve been drifting away from catholicism and christianity in general, towards atheism i suppose. i’ve thought about this before, but i have a crazy idea to answer that very question.

the idea is this: as humans who can only truly know what is set before us in the physical universe, ideas of things not within it vary greatly from person to person. perhaps the god or God any one person believes in is always real–for that person.

in fact, this is really just an adaptation of an idea that’s been circulating for a while now; that anything you imagine or believe must be real in some dimension, because there is an infinite number of them, each representing a different possibility/scenario.

so yes, God can exist even if the way people veiw him varies, if we consider God and everything else that does not physically exist in our universe real, but subjective.

 

[Hastrman]

well, i was raised roman catholic, and i’m not eighteen yet. but recently in my mind and beliefs i’ve been drifting away from catholicism and christianity in general, towards atheism i suppose. i’ve thought about this before, but i have a crazy idea to answer that very question.

the idea is this: as humans who can only truly know what is set before us in the physical universe, ideas of things not within it vary greatly from person to person. perhaps the god or God any one person believes in is always real–for that person.

in fact, this is really just an adaptation of an idea that’s been circulating for a while now; that anything you imagine or believe must be real in some dimension, because there is an infinite number of them, each representing a different possibility/scenario.

Wow. You do realize that your statement was literally meaningless, right?

See, “subjectively real” is a contradiction in terms–in other words it means nothing; it’s a grammatically correct phrase that refers to no concept, and therefore not even to a potential reality. “Real” means “exists independently of the mind of the observer”.

That’s not a crazy idea (that’s also not how the multiple universes theory works, by the bye), it’s not an idea at all.

 

[minduser]

if my post means nothing to you, fine, but don’t just beat down my opinion while calling yours absolute fact.

all i was trying to say is that God is whoever or whatever anyone wants him to be. if you disagree, fine, but that does not make it meaningless.

 

[Hastrman]

if my post means nothing to you, fine, but don’t just beat down my opinion while calling yours absolute fact.

all i was trying to say is that God is whoever or whatever anyone wants him to be. if you disagree, fine, but that does not make it meaningless.

It’s a contradiction in terms, “subjectively real”. That does in fact make it literally meaningless.

This is basic logic. Self-contradictory statements are ruled out because they mean nothing.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Wouldn’t the concept of many divergent concepts of God prove more universal than one monolitic conception?

And notice I am saying conception, because that it what it is, people have different concepts of God because He reveals himself to have various qualities. God is in some sense both that “cool dude” and “strict dude” that your two “examples” provide. I don’t necessarily see the contradiction in these two examples of God. Isn’t he loving/merciful/just?

The problem (looking at your two examples) is that people attach to certain aspects, and let those aspects define God, especially when trying to justify their own views. One takes His mercy and (in theory) acts as if his mercy includes a permissiveness that isn’t necessarily there. The other takes His just nature, and uses it to condemn others without taking into account the mercy given.

Faiths take these various concepts and define an agreeable consensus on what those various faiths believe. I wouldn’t be surprised however that you find the concepts of God experienced(and the qualities they entail) are quite similiar and universal for the most part when you really compare religions. Especially within the monotheistic faiths.

So I’d chalk this up to more human error than lack of cohesion in the personality of God.

 

[Dameedna]

if my post means nothing to you, fine, but don’t just beat down my opinion while calling yours absolute fact.

all i was trying to say is that God is whoever or whatever anyone wants him to be. if you disagree, fine, but that does not make it meaningless.

I agree his post was scathing and rude. I’m sorry you had to deal with that.

The way I see it, A persons understanding of God, does not define God, it defines the persons.

I can pick a fundamentalist, a catholic an agnostic and an athiest, by how they behave.

That, has nothing to do with who God is. We grow in stages, maybe all the above are just a piece of the puzzle.

That’s not to say everyone know’s nothing, but just that it’s coloured by who we are. Your job, is to learn youself, understand you and live.

If there’s anything I know about God, is that he wanted us to live, and to be aware enough to experience this life. That’s enough for me, so I’ll do it…with bells on

 

[Newbie2]

A very loud atheist on YouTube (lost the link) says that God cannot possibly exist because everybody has a diffrent perception of Him. The atheist provided this example…

A believer from New York City or a more liberal area would think God is “cool” and accecpting of most everything.

While a believer in the Deep South would thik that God is wrathful and commends His people to stone all the homosexuals.

Thus that atheist concludes that because everybody who believes in a monothestic deity has a diffrent perception of Him, then God cannot exist. No universal God = No God at all.

Is there any truth to this claim? My faith could rest in this one question.

This claim is pure bunk. Let’s take a piece of art, as an example, something a little bizarre, like an abstract painting or a sculpture. Let’s say further that you’ve never seen it, that you can never see it…let’s say it fell off a ship in the middle of the ocean and nobody knows where it is.

You want to know about this art, but you have to depend on others perceptions and descriptions of that art. You may eventually see it someday, if they are able to find it…but even if you never do, it still exists, right? And here all these different people each have their perception of what that art is like.

 

[PapaSquash]

if my post means nothing to you, fine, but don’t just beat down my opinion while calling yours absolute fact.

all i was trying to say is that God is whoever or whatever anyone wants him to be. if you disagree, fine, but that does not make it meaningless.

Minduser, in these philosophy threads expect your logic to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. (one of the reasons I tread lightly here.) Philosophy is not the domain of opinions. Common usage of the term, as in “that’s my philosphy” should be abondoned as soon as you enter serious discussion of the subject.

What is being pointed out is that, if reality is defined as “that which exists independent of the observer,” then God’s reality cannot be “whatever the observer happens to want it to be.” That is the part that is self-contradictory. If God really exists, then he exists in reality not just in our minds.

*I think * you were trying to say that since God is not material, he exists only in our minds. (All that is not material is mental) Thus any mental construct of God is God.

But, if “God” as we understand the term, means “the Creator, Author of reality” then we, as created parts of that reality, cannot define him. Any construct of mine, mental or physical, cannot be my creator.

The original objection in post#1 is silly:

There are many different perceptions of my boss.

I think he is an overbearing authoritarian who never lets me run with my own ideas, he is more interested in personal power than the good of the company or our clients.

His wife thinks he’s emotionally distant, a good provider, and bit to interested in his mid-life-crisis toys instead of his family.

His mistress thinks he’s a misunderstood free spirit, an artist trapped in a businessman’s life, with a poetic, almost heroic resignation to his fate.

His children think he’s a ball of fun; generous and wise, they look up to and respect him.

On some level, all are correct.

Clearly this is so contradictory that he cannot exist. Does that mean I don’t have to go to work today?

 

[Dameedna]

Minduser, in these philosophy threads expect your logic to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. (one of the reasons I tread lightly here.) Philosophy is not the domain of opinions. Common usage of the term, as in “that’s my philosphy” should be abondoned as soon as you enter serious discussion of the subject.

What is being pointed out is that, if reality is defined as “that which exists independent of the observer,” then God’s reality cannot be “whatever the observer happens to want it to be.” That is the part that is self-contradictory. If God really exists, then he exists in reality not just in our minds.

*I think * you were trying to say that since God is not material, he exists only in our minds. (All that is not material is mental) Thus any mental construct of God is God.

But, if “God” as we understand the term, means “the Creator, Author of reality” then we, as created parts of that reality, cannot define him. Any construct of mine, mental or physical, cannot be my creator.

The original objection in post#1 is silly:

There are many different perceptions of my boss.

I think he is an overbearing authoritarian who never lets me run with my own ideas, he is more interested in personal power than the good of the company or our clients.

His wife thinks he’s emotionally distant, a good provider, and bit to interested in his mid-life-crisis toys instead of his family.

His mistress thinks he’s a misunderstood free spirit, an artist trapped in a businessman’s life, with a poetic, almost heroic resignation to his fate.

His children think he’s a ball of fun; generous and wise, they look up to and respect him.

On some level, all are correct.

Clearly this is so contradictory that he cannot exist. Does that mean I don’t have to go to work today?

If you actually followed your view you’d be busy helping, rather than making people feel stupid with their tentative and raw questions,. And yet you berate with your l philisophical views that are not new, but some of many.

Try being a human, before you try philosophy

 

[PapaSquash]

I am trying to be helpful. I attempted to explain to minduser why his stance seemed self-contradictory rather than simply dismissing it. Clearly he is not stupid. I hoped to teach. I also tried to understand what he was trying to express. ( I didn’t think it was correct, but it wasn’t incoherent.)

I also hoped that I could help the original poster dismiss the athiest’s arguments, particularly because he indicated his faith might be hanging on this point.

All disagreement isn’t personal. I wasn’t trying to berate anybody. I hope minduser, took no offense and if any was given, I apologize.

 

[brandymmiller]

Thus that atheist concludes that because everybody who believes in a monothestic deity has a diffrent perception of Him, then God cannot exist. No universal God = No God at all.

Is there any truth to this claim? My faith could rest in this one question.

It’s actually a very silly argument. Human beings always perceive things differently from one another. In fact, we even perceive color differently when viewing the exact same color! Our perceptions are created by filtering our current experiences through our belief of how the world works, which was formed by our past experiences. Since no two people, not even identical twins, have identical past experiences no two people will have identical perceptions of a situation.

It’s a bit like saying that Wyoming doesn’t exist. After all, some people have never been to Wyoming. Of those people who have been to Wyoming, no two people had the same perception of Wyoming. Some of the people who claim to have been to Wyoming describe having seen tall mountains and lots of snow but no wild animals. Some people who claim to have been to Wyoming describe having seen lots of hills and steppes but no mountains and many wild animals such as deer and antelope as well as lots of snow. Some people who have been to Wyoming describe it as being beautiful country. Some people who have been to Wyoming describe it as being nothing more than a dirty snowball of a place. It all depends on what happened to the person while they were visiting Wyoming as to whether or not the descriptions match, and what part of it they visited. To determine whether or not Wyoming actually exists, you have to go to those people who have been there and get them to give you their full descriptions of what it was like. Then you look for common ground between the descriptions - some unifying factor between the descriptions that would allow you to identify where this place might be and how to get there. If you still had doubts, you would then have to take a trip and actually visit the place.

 

[minduser]

After all, some people have never been to Wyoming.

don’t you mean “almost all people”?

and i know two people have already called the term “subjectively real” contradictory, but i guess one last defence couldn’t hurt.

God, if we were to compare Him to something in our universe, would probably be best compared to an idea–like peace, or love.

both ‘peace’ and ‘love’ can mean very different things to different people. does that mean that neither of them are real? i suppose you could make that argument, but i don’t think so.

God is not an object–he is not a rock that we can throw, or a book we can read, or a wall we can lean against. wouldn’t you know!–neither are love and peace.

edit: and perhaps you’d be interested in reading this:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

 

[beckycmarie]

don’t you mean “almost all people”?

and i know two people have already called the term “subjectively real” contradictory, but i guess one last defence couldn’t hurt.

God, if we were to compare Him to something in our universe, would probably be best compared to an idea–like peace, or love.

both ‘peace’ and ‘love’ can mean very different things to different people. does that mean that neither of them are real? i suppose you could make that argument, but i don’t think so.

God is not an object–he is not a rock that we can throw, or a book we can read, or a wall we can lean against. wouldn’t you know!–neither are love and peace.

edit: and perhaps you’d be interested in reading this:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

God is pure spirit and not a material being, but that doesn’t reduce Him to an abstract noun such as “peace.”

Evil happens because God allows us to have free will. God does not force our will; so people can freely choose to do evil things and sin.

Also, much evil comes from Satan and his demons who “prowl the world seeking the ruin of souls.”

 

[cpayne]

A very loud atheist on YouTube (lost the link) says that God cannot possibly exist because everybody has a diffrent perception of Him. The atheist provided this example…

A believer from New York City or a more liberal area would think God is “cool” and accecpting of most everything.

While a believer in the Deep South would thik that God is wrathful and commends His people to stone all the homosexuals.

Thus that atheist concludes that because everybody who believes in a monothestic deity has a diffrent perception of Him, then God cannot exist. No universal God = No God at all.

Is there any truth to this claim? My faith could rest in this one question.

Hi, PatThePoet. First of all, here’s some unasked-for advice: Don’t ever base your faith on the answer to one question. There are a lot of questions we won’t ever figure out.

But regarding this particular question, I’d say the atheist is entirely incorrect. About 900 years ago, Anselm argued that everyone’s perception of God is actually pretty close to identical: “That than which nothing greater can be conceived.” The Supreme Being, the Greatest Possible Being, in other words. Just the fact that different people have different names for this Being or emphasize different perceptions of this Being doesn’t really matter much. Logically only one Being could be Supreme, so if people are talking about the Supreme Being when they refer to God, they are talking about the same reality.

Hope this helps. Don’t give up on faith, and especially don’t give up on faith and reason working together. “The first and greatest commandment is this: Love God with all your heart and mind.”

 

[beckycmarie]

Thus that atheist concludes that because everybody who believes in a monothestic deity has a diffrent perception of Him, then God cannot exist. No universal God = No God at all.

Is there any truth to this claim? My faith could rest in this one question.

The truth is written in every human being’s heart, which is why many cultures have similar morals. Nearly every religion has some version of the “Golden Rule.”

God choose to reveal Himself first to the Israelites, and then again when he sent his Son.

People have different perceptions of God based on whether or not they have received the truth; but every person has some concept of the one true God written in their hearts.

 

[fhansen]

A very loud atheist on YouTube (lost the link) says that God cannot possibly exist because everybody has a diffrent perception of Him. The atheist provided this example…

A believer from New York City or a more liberal area would think God is “cool” and accecpting of most everything.

While a believer in the Deep South would thik that God is wrathful and commends His people to stone all the homosexuals.

Thus that atheist concludes that because everybody who believes in a monothestic deity has a diffrent perception of Him, then God cannot exist. No universal God = No God at all.

Is there any truth to this claim? My faith could rest in this one question.

I think the reason this idea is at all challenging is because it claims that God must be merely a creation of the mind-otherwise He would be consistent. Another example is the Prosperity movement which thinks God’s a big sugar-daddy who wants only to shower us with goodies if we believe hard enough-and give money to them-while Catholics are taught that suffering will happen and even to embrace it. For me it just points again to the necessity of our Catholic faith which has been given the purpose of knowing and proclaiming the truth about God and His will for us.