Thoughts Concerning God's Interaction With the World

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Thoughts Concerning God's Interaction With the World

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 06:55 pm
This is just a hypothesis on God and his interaction with the world. Help/ Criticisms would be appreciated. I'm not really vouching for this hypothesis per se, but it's something that has taken up some of my time over the past day or so. I'm sure there are problems with it. Keep in mind also that this is hypothetical. I am not saying that God does indeed exist as this set of thoughts is branching off of the limitations of human nature. To be honest I dont think its plausible to prove God outright, for to do so would destroy the essence of all religions: faith. I think Kant had these same thoughts when he made this statement: "I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief."

(Assumptions)
0. All of our knowledge is based upon experience.

0.1 We cannot understand knowledge without experience.

0.12 All knowledge without experience is illogical.

0.2 Every individual is limited.

0.21 All experience occurs within individuals.

0.22 All individual experience is limited.

0.3 Each individual constructs a world based upon their experience.

1. The world is limited in scope.

Hypothesis

1.1 The world cannot be unlimited in scope as that requires an unlimited being.

1.11 We mean unlimited when it comes to perception and comprehension.

1.12 An unlimited being, unlike a limited being, can see all things at once.

1.13 This unlimited being's picture of the world is the world in itself.

1.1131 It experiences all things at once and cannot doubt anything.

1.14 This being is outside the world.

1.15 This being is transcendent.

1.16 This being we will entitle "God".

1.2 All things that exist outside the world cannot be spoken of.

1.21 All experience can be spoken of.

1.22 Experience reveals things to us. (Revelation)

1.23 All revelation can be spoken of.

1.24 If God reveals himself in the world, then he can be spoken of.

1.241 The only possiblity could be through the spoken word.

1.2411 In order for God to speak he must have a mouth and a mind.

1.24111 "In His image" is equivalent to likeness.

1.24112 Likeness is an ambigious word and does not mean that God looks like any one individual.

1.24113 Likeness is also ambigious concerning anatomy e.g. Male or Female.

1.242 Hypothetically God has a mouth, face, and mind.

1.243 (Assumption) God manifests the word in the world.

1.244 God reveals Himself in the world through our words.

1.241 Our words signify experience.

1.242 God reveals himself through experience.

1.3 We can say that God exists.

1.31 We cannot know how it is that God came into existence, because God does not create himself in the world.

1.311 We are in the world.

1.312 We use experience to form our limited picture of the world.

1.313 We create God from this picture.

1.3131 It is not the case that God exists through our creation but only that our sum total of experience creates a limited picture of God.

1.314 This limited picture is the subjective particular.

1.3141 The sum total of all limited pictures is the subjective universal.

1.315 We can only create a partial picture of God's existence.

1.3151 Whatever lies beyond this unified limited picture cannot be spoken of.

1.3152 In a word, it's transcendent.

1.316 God perceives the sum total of the world as He is outside the world.

1.32 God is the objective universal.

1.33 The objective universal cannot be spoken without reference to ourselves.

2. We cannot know God except through ourselves. (architectonic)
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 08:52 pm
@Ding an Sich,
I don't agree with all of it, but I like the style, the subject matter, and agree with some of it. I especially agree with "We cannot know God except through ourselves."

The style is praiseworthy for its clarity, I think. At the same time I don't view the statements as proven, but what statements ever are? Persuasion is proof, but not unless I persuade you that persuasion is proof.

You probably like Wittgenstein. So do I. I can never forget that lefthanded glove being rotated in 4-dimensional space.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 10:02 pm
@Reconstructo,
I've always had a problem, when dealing with the Christian God, God's immanence and transcendence. I think that the only real way to branch the two together is through language. Granted how God does this we cannot know, but only speculate (my assumptions on the manifestation of God's word and revelation through experience).

Quote:
The style is praiseworthy for its clarity, I think. At the same time I don't view the statements as proven, but what statements ever are? Persuasion is proof, but not unless I persuade you that persuasion is proof.


The design of this series of thoughts was never to really prove any of my statements concerning God. I think the only statements I would take as an attempt to prove anything in this hypothesis is not the hypothesis itself, but my assumptions (0-1). Then again Im not entirely certain of these either.

Oh and yes Wittgenstein is one of my few heroes in philosophy; him, Kant and Kierkegaard form my trinity of thought.
 
Lost1 phil
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 11:01 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;125546 wrote:
2. We cannot know God except through ourselves. (architectonic)


Can not the conclusion also mean, if we choose to believe it is God through ourselves then it is a truth to ourselves. Yet, we can also choose to believe it is always just ourselves. The only difference being is in the comfort and quieting of our fears that we make the choice to credit someone/something outside ourselves?

Lost1
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 07:16 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;125597 wrote:
I've always had a problem, when dealing with the Christian God, God's immanence and transcendence. I think that the only real way to branch the two together is through language. Granted how God does this we cannot know, but only speculate (my assumptions on the manifestation of God's word and revelation through experience).



The design of this series of thoughts was never to really prove any of my statements concerning God. I think the only statements I would take as an attempt to prove anything in this hypothesis is not the hypothesis itself, but my assumptions (0-1). Then again Im not entirely certain of these either.

Oh and yes Wittgenstein is one of my few heroes in philosophy; him, Kant and Kierkegaard form my trinity of thought.


I don't know what got me on the "proof" issue. I like that trinity.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 07:24 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;125584 wrote:

The style is praiseworthy for its clarity, I think. At the same time I don't view the statements as proven, but what statements ever are? Persuasion is proof, but not unless I persuade you that persuasion is proof.

.


Therefore, if I persuade someone that there is a Santa Claus, and he is persuaded that I have proved there is a Santa Claus, I have proved there is a Santa Claus. And, of course, if I persuade someone else that there is no Santa Claus, and he is persuaded that there is no Santa Claus, then I have also proved there is no Santa Claus. Therefore I have both proved there is a Santa Claus, and also proved there is no Santa Claus. Hmmm. I have to think about that-for about 1 second.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 10:28 am
@Lost1 phil,
Lost1;125760 wrote:
Can not the conclusion also mean, if we choose to believe it is God through ourselves then it is a truth to ourselves. Yet, we can also choose to believe it is always just ourselves. The only difference being is in the comfort and quieting of our fears that we make the choice to credit someone/something outside ourselves?

Lost1


My end statement is indeed a subjective one and yet it is also objective. It is subjective in that we know God through ourselves. "Through ourselves" deals mainly with time. I guess in this case I might need to explain myself. For me time is inner sense (Kantian reference) but it is also can be dealt with in the world with space (outer sense). This hypothesis deals with both intuitions, but mostly time. Although keep in mind that time and space are very indirectly used in this hypothesis.

The first part of your conclusion, "if we choose to believe it is God through ourselves then it is a truth to ourselves.", is something like what my conclusion results in but I leave out choice. Choice does indeed factor in but that deals primarily with the will. For that reason I do not investigate further because any religion (in particular Christianity) is a choice of the subjective will. This will can lead us to the objective, but we can never be truly certain; this is where faith intercedes.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Thoughts Concerning God's Interaction With the World
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 03:15:24