Doxa

I generally don't start threads but I wanted to know about this.

From memory of reading meta's blogs here's how I understand this.

God doesn't exist.

God isn't a thing alongside or in addition to other things.

God would be the ground of existence itself or, the ground of being. I guess I understand that as the sustainer which upholds all what we see as existence.

So when the Soviets said they went up into space and never saw God they were talking as though God was a thing which exists. But it is their existence itself which is sustained by God.

God doesn't exist.

I do like this but I don't recall the purpose of this way of thinking or argument. I think most of the philosophical understanding and talk of God isn't something I really get. I think I may get this though.

I do like nature and have been amazed, visually, but I'm not sure I naturally see purpose behind it. I think I pretty much just see God on the cross and in, or behind, higher principles and ideals but that is from my own experience.

I dunno why I happened to be logged in today, runamok, but maybe it was to answer this. .. .


. . . ok, so <A-hem!>


There's not really much difference between

There's no God

and

There my of may not be a 'God' - in the sense of the 'Ground of Being,' like some kind of super-conscious creational force - but he/she/it has never shown signs of concern with us, with humanity

That that 'God' - ie the 'Ground of Being' or 'Being Itself' - CARES, in interested and involved with us, has to be the basic 'theistic' claim I think. Not just 'God's" raw existence or even 'super-existence' s a creative/sustaining force. God can be found in our basic intuition about the essential goodness or blessedness of life, our sense that life has meaning and beauty that transcends our instincts - our raw desire for survival, safety, reproduction, &tc. THAT'S (for me) what Tilllich means when he says that if you believe being has depth, you can't (really) be an atheist.


</A-hem!>

runamokmonk wrote:I generally don't start threads but I wanted to know about this.

From memory of reading meta's blogs here's how I understand this.

God doesn't exist.

God isn't a thing alongside or in addition to other things.

God would be the ground of existence itself or, the ground of being. I guess I understand that as the sustainer which upholds all what we see as existence.

So when the Soviets said they went up into space and never saw God they were talking as though God was a thing which exists. But it is their existence itself which is sustained by God.

God doesn't exist.

I do like this but I don't recall the purpose of this way of thinking or argument. I think most of the philosophical understanding and talk of God isn't something I really get. I think I may get this though.

I do like nature and have been amazed, visually, but I'm not sure I naturally see purpose behind it. I think I pretty much just see God on the cross and in, or behind, higher principles and ideals but that is from my own experience.

it's a more sophisticated understanding than atheists of fundies have.no atheist argument I know applies to this. it outdates everything atheists have to say.

You basically got it right. I would ad existence is for contingent things and being is for necessary things, or rather we are all beings and participate in Being, but The ground of being is necessary and the beings are contingent.

met wrote:I dunno why I happened to be logged in today, runamok, but maybe it was to answer this. .. .


. . . ok, so <A-hem!>


There's not really much difference between

There's no God

and

There my of may not be a 'God' - in the sense of the 'Ground of Being,' like some kind of super-conscious creational force - but he/she/it has never shown signs of concern with us, with humanity

that is not Tillich and it's not me. that's a straw man argument.

there' is a huge difference in saying "there is no God" and saying "God is the ground of being"

That that 'God' - ie the 'Ground of Being' or 'Being Itself' - CARES, in interested and involved with us, has to be the basic 'theistic' claim I think. Not just 'God's" raw existence or even 'super-existence' s a creative/sustaining force. God can be found in our basic intuition about the essential goodness or blessedness of life, our sense that life has meaning and beauty that transcends our instincts - our raw desire for survival, safety, reproduction, &tc. THAT'S (for me) what Tilllich means when he says that if you believe being has depth, you can't (really) be an atheist.


</A-hem!>

[/quote]

Nothing about ground of being that negates God caring or being involved. In fact it's much easier for being itself to be involved all being than for a big man on a throne with a white beard. It is an inadequate understanding to understand being itself as a impersonal force.

Metacrock wrote:
there' is a huge difference in saying "there is no God" and saying "God is the ground of being

Nononono!! My point WAS there's not much difference between saying "there is no God' and saying "God is indifferent' .. .(or saying "The gods are indifferent' for that matter). In ordinary usage when people say 'There's a God' or even 'There's a higher being' it already implies some qualities they believe that being has - basically it implies there's a good God,or a benevolent ground of being, with qualities like love, mercy, justice, etc.

Nothing about ground of being that negates God caring or being involved. In fact it's much easier for being itself to be involved all being than for a big man on a throne with a white beard. It is an inadequate understanding to understand being itself as a impersonal force.

I didn't say it negated that either. Just that, as I understand it anyway, 'God is Being Itself' means something quite a bit more more for both u and Tillich (and for me too) than just a tautological definition. It implies something about the nature of existence.

Both reply's have helped me.

And this did cause me to think.

That that 'God' - ie the 'Ground of Being' or 'Being Itself' - CARES, in interested and involved with us, has to be the basic 'theistic' claim I think. Not just 'God's" raw existence or even 'super-existence' s a creative/sustaining force. God can be found in our basic intuition about the essential goodness or blessedness of life, our sense that life has meaning and beauty that transcends our instincts - our raw desire for survival, safety, reproduction, &tc. THAT'S (for me) what Tilllich means when he says that if you believe being has depth, you can't (really) be an atheist.

'God is Being Itself' means something quite a bit more more for both u and Tillich (and for me too) than just a tautological definition. It implies something about the nature of existence.

I would say the Ground of Being is conscious, self-aware Love.

KR Wordgazer wrote:

'God is Being Itself' means something quite a bit more more for both u and Tillich (and for me too) than just a tautological definition. It implies something about the nature of existence.

I would say the Ground of Being is conscious, self-aware Love.

yea there you go! why not?

I would say that the ground of being smells faintly of quality European chocolate and sounds like the distant tinkle of wind chimes.

fleetmouse wrote:I would say that the ground of being smells faintly of quality European chocolate and sounds like the distant tinkle of wind chines.

lol!

I think the realization that I could not fit into my reality (as i perceive it) a god who DOES intervene and act, that it became easier for me to cross the line to atheism.
I had...lots of hope...but it is not something I see. In fact the absence of it was rather causing my heart to bleed, for the very hope for it's existence....
that was where all the pain, and emotional disturbance in my journey really was. Coming to the understanding that it was possible for us to exist without this "requirement"...and the realization that whether God existed or not, i do not see life (in the reality that i realize it) changing....was a huge step for me.
When I realized I could except deism, it was not a far step from atheism. I still could fathom a Deist sort of God ...just no longer see the necessity to do so.