I don't agree with ascribing human attributes to God.
Fair. However, the Bible, and more to the point - the vast majority of the faithful - uses these attributes all the time when describing God. "Jealous" "loving" "vengeful" "wroth" . . . would you postulate then that holy books with these types of adjectives are thusly invalidated then, or that those claiming to be of the faithful are mistaken in their assertations?
God is above all of that and far too complicated for humans to be able to ascribe such traits.
...but apparently not so complicated that He/She/It speaks to various people and prophets. In fact I have read on this very forum from the faithful that their relationship with God is personal and direct. If God is above human understanding, thus preventing him from ascribing attributes to his creator, then how does this individual even recognize God's presence in their life?
Personally - I find your position much more compelling, but this is a very decidedly Daoist take on God/Divinity, to quote Lao Tsu from the Dao De Jing:
The Dao that can be named is not the true and eternal Dao.
Diogenes The Cynic:
- 2. God wants the "best" for everyone,
7. A Segregated afterlife exists,
14. Upon creation of the soul, God knows whether the individual will go to [BETTER] or [WORSE]
If these statements are true, all of which you agreed to - how is it possible that God wants the "best" for an individuals soul if upon creation, He knows that he is creating a soul due to be (for Christians) suffering eternally in Hell, or (for Jews) to not know God and be distant from him in the World to Come? We can use "best" and "redeemed" interchangeably I think depending on which denomination we're talk to.
The obvious:
- 15.God is Omnipotent
16.God, as the Universal Architect, controls All.,
17(a). Human beings possess free-will
How can God control All, but not be in control of the will of humans? The only way this logically makes sense if he chooses to relinquish that power and inso doing also relinquishes his omnipotence. As a summation, I would posit that: "Omnipotence - free will != Omnipotence"
Prior to proceeding further - I think we need to reach a consensus on:
1. God loves everyone. - Is this an accurate reflection of the faithful?
4. God wants everyone to be "saved."
10. Either "eternal bliss in the Kingdom of Heaven" or "eternal suffering / longing in the lake of fire," gives a pretty good summation of this: I notice you didn't enumerate the following clause - would you agree to this then:
10(alternate): However, even a more moderated "distance from God," belief (commonly held by the Jewish) still implies a negative connotation, that for the rest of eternity, your afterlife is defined by "not knowing God," or being a part of his chosen.
If not, how can we square this to be an accurate reflection for the purposes of discussion?
Your patience is appreciated. I wanted to take some time to digest what you're saying here to ensure I can get the best possible readings of what you've written to make your case. I think you have interesting points here, so I'll be sure to point those out as I go over this. I will also endeavor to keep the context of things I'm quoting as whole as possible.
Whether people claim to "feel God's presence" or not has never interested me. I think that just by existing you are feeling God's presence. Whether one is sensitive to the fact or not is another question.
This is an interesting position again because I think this skirts dangerously close to affirming the consequent:
- If God exists, you feel God's presence because you are part of God
- God exists.
therefore:
What about those, like Moses, who God (allegedly) spoke to directly? Is existing the only way to feel God's presence? Is there a stratification in feeling/not feeling his presence?
I understand the jist here, and I also acknowledge that you properly qualify this as a personal opinion, but this first two statements would seem to fly in the face of individuals that resolutely deny the physical/spiritual/tangential/etc experience of God in any shape or form - and thus making the third statement both unnecessary and impossible. I also understand why the possibility of someone not feeling God's presence is of no Interest/consequence to you, because you have already made that assertion for them in your second statement.
Can a portion of God deny its existence? I'm reticent to use any analogies because I suspect they would be summarily dismissed as "ascribing human emotions/logic/parameters to the discussion," but it raises some interesting questions. Now, more overtly pantheistic faiths (like Hindu) *do* ascribe to this, as the Brahman deliberately splinters it's consciousness ("gets lost in itself") for a period 3 Kalpas (a deliberately and absurdly long number), after which is coalesces, takes a "breather," and goes at it again.
However, I don't think that would be representative of Judaism, would I be incorrect in this statement?
The Whole vs. The Artifact
I acknowledge your position (and DTC's as well) that you believe anthropomorphizing God is fallacious. However, would it be that inaccurate when the Book of Genesis (I believe) describes that God gave Adam and Eve a soul "not unlike his own?" If our eternal soul is not unlike his, then is it really that far-stretched that some traits would be off?
... or is this an inaccurate translation/misinterpretation? At this point I want to ensure that all bases are covered rather than make an assumption.
However, what I'm struggling with here is this duality of God both as discrete Creator/Architect and as the Artifact itself. Let me show the statements that I think is best representative of this:
God as the Whole
Humans are part of God just as much as everything else in the universe is part of God.
God is the whole.
God "hardening Pharaoh's heart" to Moses' petitions. I believe that God here is simply just the universe...[truncated for relevance]
God as the Architect
However I believe that when the laws of physics were set God then essentially stepped back and let things unfold how they would unfold.
There's no maintenance involved because the universe is self maintaining so far as I understand.
But I do suppose that the universe was created, the physical unbreakable laws were set, and things unfolded so that we exist today with free will and that the Torah is a written "history" of the Jewish/Hebrew people.
I will also freely admit that this could simply be a result of my lack of understanding, but it does seem that the pantheistic position is used as a good "catch all" when potentially sticky subjects like the seemingly emotional motivation of God are raised, but then at the same time, God is then spoken (as you have in some of the quotes above) as being seperate from the artifact that is the Universe, when relating to questions regarding to God's Omni properties - as when you said:
However I believe that when the laws of physics were set God then essentially stepped back and let things unfold how they would unfold.
How can something "step back" from itself? Can you step back from your being/physicality? I can understand stepping back from a situation, a location, but when I have read your posts, I start to see/read a resulting postion/truth statement like the one below:
"When the All-knowing, All-powerful God created God, God stepped back from God and let the laws of God maintain God, as God is self-sustaining."
Right? Because "God is the Universe," I should be able to use the two terms interchangeably without any loss/conflict in meaning or consistency. Perhaps, again as I mentioned, this doesn't read strange to you, but again I'm having a hard time reconciling the two positions, since other pantheistic faiths do not ascribe God as a discrete creator either in their texts or their language structure when speaking of God(s).
This is a very interesting discussion - hopefully we can continue working through these point and see if I might be able to glean a little bit more understanding of the aforementioned points.
edit: conscious -> consciousness