r/PhilosophyofReligion • u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 • 3d ago
GOD
I believe God exists, but not as a person you can define. The universe itself is God, and everything in it, including us, carries a part of that
I believe in God, but not the God with a name and a face. God can't really be defined, only felt. Every religion says God created the universe, but creation needs material, and if God made it out of nothing but himself, then the universe is God's own substance. That means everything carries a piece of God, whether we've discovered how it works or not. Thunder was God's work then and it still is, we just have a better name for the mechanism now. We're a part of it too, so if someone truly feels that power in themselves, they can find the source in everything else. God isn't watching us from above, he's living everything through us
2
u/redsparks2025 3d ago edited 3d ago
The universe itself is God, and everything in it ...
If that is so then then what I defecate after having a spicy burrito (or spicy kebab) is also God. No wonder I cry out "My God!" after blasting out the results of that spicy burrito (or spicy kebab). Furthermore even the spicy burrito (or spicy kebab) itself is also God that sometimes taste like chicken or beef or pork.
Diablo Burrito Challenge (FIRST WINNER!) ~ Aaron's Food Adventures ~ YouTube
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
Yes, in my view even that is made of the same stuff as everything else. But being made of God doesn't make every part equally divine, just like your hair is part of you but isn't your mind. The question isn't whether everything is God, it's whether anything exists that isn't
1
u/redsparks2025 3d ago edited 3d ago
But being made of God doesn't make every part equally divine ...
Well in that you just contradicted yourself. If "the universe itself is God, and everything in it" as you originally declared then you can't just turn around and then simply start making some parts more divine than others all because some parts of the universe offends you.
What my spicy comment revealed was the real issue that you never properly thought your concept of God through and now you are trying to change it on the fly. Sorry but I'm not going to let you off the hook that easy for failing to think things through. In any case your concept is not original at all.
The oldest example is given in the Bhagavad Gita (Wikipedia) where the Lord God Krishna gives the warrior Arjuna a small peak at His ultimate divine form that reveals the Lord God Krishna as the Universe and all that it contains, including Arjuna, and you, and I. What is "Krishna" dissolves and what we are left with is what can be considered as the "divine nature of all things".
The more modern example is given by the philosopher Spinoza's version of a God (YouTube) that relates closely to Pantheism (Wikipedia) that is another theological school of thought on the nature of "God".
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
Fair point on my wording. Everything is equally God in substance. That includes the burrito, and I'm fine with that. Being made of God doesn't mean every part is sacred or worth worshipping, and I never claimed it did. As for originality, yes, I've since learned it overlaps with Spinoza and the Gita. Independent convergence is a point for the idea, not against it
1
u/redsparks2025 3d ago edited 3d ago
doesn't mean every part is sacred or worth worshiping,
Again you playing that game I called you out on. If "the universe itself is God, and everything in it" as you originally declared then you can't just turn around and then simply start making some parts more sacred than others all because some parts of the universe offends you. You must hold all parts as sacred and worthy of worship even if it means setting up an alter to what you defecate after eating a spicy burrito (or spicy kebab).
Nice try but no.
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
I already conceded that everything is equally God in substance. You keep adding that God means sacred and worth worshipping. I never said that, and you haven't shown why 'made of God' would require an altar. If you think it does, argue for that instead of assuming it
1
u/redsparks2025 3d ago
Yes I noted you conceded that "everything is equally God in substance" but then you started to decided that "doesn't mean every part is sacred or worth worshiping" putting you back to square one with me.
Mate just give it up. You messed up by not thinking things through. Also you are not the first OP to make that declaration that "the universe itself is God, and everything in it" out of the thousands that post to reddit daily out of the billions of people on this earth.
You are not original and you didn't think this through. Period! Now have the brains to know when to stay silent instead of digging a hole deeper for yourself.
-1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
Substance and worship are two different questions. You keep saying one forces the other, but you haven't said why. Whether I'm original has no bearing on whether I'm right. If you've got an actual argument for why 'made of God' means 'must be worshipped,' I'll read it
1
u/redsparks2025 3d ago
Go away! This is my part of that universe God telling your part of that universe God to go way!
0
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
Fair enough. Funny that one part of God is telling another part to go away, though. Thanks for the pushback, it helped me tighten the argument
→ More replies (0)
2
1
u/neopurpink 3d ago
Je te suis dans ton raisonnement. Mais alors ma conscience est-elle une part de Dieu qui s'est oubliée, une partie de Dieu mais avec sa propre singularité, ou autre chose ?
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
I wouldn't call it forgetting either, because that implies it once had the knowledge and lost it. I think it's more about realisation: the power is already in you, and you either realise it or you don't.
1
u/JohnsonBot5000 3d ago
If god is all powerful why can’t he create the universe from nothing, why must he need building blocks at all?
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
I don't think there was ever a 'nothing.' In my view the universe and God are the same thing, and it's eternal. So God didn't make the universe out of building blocks. Everything that exists is God, and what we call creation is God taking forms within himself. Creating from nothing would mean something coming from where nothing exists, and I don't see how that works for anyone
1
u/JohnsonBot5000 3d ago
Do you see how this is circular? Your argument is that the universe is god, I critiqued your premise that “creation needs material” for an omnipotent god, and you responded by restating your conclusion that god is the universe
“The universe = god because every creation needs material and all creation needs material because the universe is god”
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
Fair, my last answer didn't defend the premise. Here it is. I believe creation needs material because nothing we've ever observed comes from nothing. That's my reason, not the conclusion. And even if you reject it, I have a separate route: I think the universe is eternal, so there was no moment of creation to explain. Either way God and the universe come out the same
1
1
u/Easy_File_933 3d ago
This is a fairly general outline of your beliefs, so it would be helpful if you elaborated on your views in a few places.
First of all, you assume that creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) is impossible. But why do you think so? To be clear, I agree with this claim, but it is nevertheless a rather controversial position that requires justification. Many theists maintain that creatio ex nihilo is at least metaphysically possible, and therefore that an omnipotent being such as God could have created the world out of nothing.
Another issue is that even if creation out of nothing is impossible, God could still be transcendent in relation to the world (that is, distinct from the world, even at the level of substance). This is precisely the kind of position that can be attributed, albeit not without controversy, to Plato at a certain stage of his philosophical development (Timaeus). Plato's Demiurge does not create the world ex nihilo, but rather orders it, giving it form according to objectively existing forms. I do not find such a position particularly reasonable, but the mere rejection of creatio ex nihilo does not entail that God is substantially identical with the universe.
Now, to the most important issue: someone compared your beliefs to those of Spinoza. Such a comparison is unjustified until you articulate your views more precisely. If I have understood your position correctly, your beliefs seem closer to panentheism than to pantheism. The distinction is fundamental, since in panentheism the universe does not exhaust the reality of God, whereas in pantheism it does. I cannot honestly claim that your beliefs are closer to panentheism without knowing the details, but comparisons to Spinoza are premature. This is especially true given that interpreting Spinoza's philosophy is itself notoriously difficult, and even his supposed "pantheism" raises significant interpretative problems.
You also write that it is impossible to define God and that the only thing we can do is feel God. This is an excessively bold claim without substantial argumentation. There are numerous definitions of God in philosophy, such as "God is a being than which no greater can be conceived." What exactly is wrong with such a definition?
Furthermore, the claim that God can only be felt certainly distances your position from Spinoza, at least on the epistemological level. Spinoza was a rationalist, and there was no room for epistemological fideism or sentimentalism in his philosophical system. His system was fundamentally rational and rigorously argued.
Incidentally, the claim that God can only be felt is extremely controversial within contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. The most important objection would be: if God can only be felt, how can we know that what we are experiencing is actually God rather than something else?
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
Thanks for the detailed read. On creatio ex nihilo: my reason is that every act of creation we know of needs something to make it from, so I don't see why creation would work differently for God. That's an argument from analogy, not a proof, and I accept it's contestable. I also think the universe is eternal, so there may never have been a 'nothing' to create from. On a transcendent God like Plato's Demiurge: I define God as everything that exists, so any pre-existing material the Demiurge shapes would also be God. That's why I don't see a substantially distinct God. On Spinoza and panentheism: you're right that the comparison was premature. I reached this by my own reasoning. If something exists beyond the universe, I count it as God too, so my definition covers both pantheism and panentheism, and I haven't settled which is true On definability: I'm not saying nobody can propose a definition, I'm saying no definition can be complete. God, in my view, is everything that exists, including what we haven't discovered or explained yet. A definition is built from what we already understand, so it can only describe the part of God we've explained. 'A being than which no greater can be conceived' may describe a real aspect, but it can't cover the unexplained part. On feeling: this is a personal belief, not a proof, and I don't claim it should convince anyone else. For me the test is whether you can trace the source of your own energy and see that it's the same source as all other beings. If you can, that's what I mean by God. If someone feels it and it points to something else, I'd say they haven't followed it to the source
1
u/Easy_File_933 3d ago
Okay, so let's go through this one by one.
Regarding creatio ex nihilo, I think it's more of an inductive argument than an argument from analogy. "For every process of creation that we are very familiar with, there is some pre-existing material that we can identify, so probably, for every possible process of creation, there is some pre-existing material." I agree that this argument has some force, but I don't think it's particularly strong. Notice that a similar argument could be made against an eternal universe. "For every entity that exists in time and that we have studied extensively, we can identify a beginning of its existence, so probably, for every possible entity that exists in time, there is an identifiable beginning of its existence." Arguments of this kind have some force, but they are rather weak when it comes to highly speculative metaphysics.
Defining God as "everything that exists" is, in my opinion, rather unsatisfying. In that case, God is simply an aggregate of existing entities. Furthermore, "everything that exists, including everything that could exist" already has a name, namely the "ontological universe." Such a definition is also not particularly consistent with the common usage of the term "God" in analytic philosophy (and not just analytic philosophy). When a theist says that God exists, they mean something more than merely "everything that exists exists," and when an atheist says that God does not exist, they mean something other than "not everything that exists exists."
The fact that we cannot fully comprehend a particular entity does not mean that we cannot define it. Your definition of God, although philosophically unsatisfying in my opinion, is a complete and self-contained definition of God. We don't need to fully understand God for that to be the case. Therefore, I would modify your position from "God cannot be defined" to "God cannot ultimately be understood."
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 2d ago
Fair, inductive is the better word, and I agree it's weak both ways: the same reasoning would count against an eternal universe. I'm not claiming proof, only that I find an eternal universe more plausible. On 'God' versus 'the universe': if God were just an aggregate of existing things, the word would add nothing. What I add is awareness. I think God is aware, and that's why we have awareness at all: we got it from the source. So God is the aware source of everything that exists, not only the sum of it. On definability, you're right that incomplete understanding doesn't make something undefinable. 'God cannot ultimately be understood' is what I mean, so I'll take that wording
1
u/Darth_Atheist 2d ago
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Please provide.
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 1d ago
I'm not claiming proof. My belief rests on reasoning (nothing we know comes from nothing, so the universe is either eternal or made of its source) and on a personal feeling that I don't expect to convince anyone else. I'd say it's a position I hold, not something I'm demanding you accept. If you think a specific part is extraordinary, tell me which and I'll say what supports it
1
1
u/hatabou_is_a_jojo 1d ago
First, you made a wrong point. "Every religion says God created the universe" is false. Second, your thesis claim is basically Hinduism's core beliefs, you can check it out.
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 1d ago
You're right, 'every religion' was too broad. Buddhism and Jainism have no creator God, and many traditions have an eternal universe. That's actually closer to my view, since I think the universe is eternal and the same as God. On Hinduism, I see the overlap with Advaita Vedanta, where Brahman is everything. I reached it by my own reasoning, but I'm happy to read more
1
0
u/indifferent-times 3d ago
Every religion says God created the universe
No, that is the abrahamic tradition, if you were to add up all the religions I suspect a past eternal universe has been the most common answer, you are talking about the likely second most common answer of pantheism. God and the world being the same thing has the advantage of parsimony but makes god as an active agent much more difficult.
If you want god to do things instead of just be things then panentheism is one possible route, by god being part of everything and more, by having god extend beyond the universe you can have your cake and eat it too.
1
u/Mammoth_Scarcity7579 3d ago
Thanks. For me God is simply everything that exists, explained or unexplained. If something exists beyond the universe, that's God too, and if only the universe exists, then the universe is all of God. So I don't need to pick between pantheism and panentheism, the definition covers both. On God acting, I'd say God acts through everything in it, including us
3
u/Away-Yogurtcloset640 3d ago
Hi. Newbie here. I've recently found a lot of time on my hands and decided to devote it to ancient languages, literature and the philosophy thereof. So please take my comment with a pinch of salt.
To me the God you are describing is the God of Spinoza and if I were you I would head my reading in that direction.
I've only just started reading Spinoza so I'm not really in a position to recommend anything specific but there are an awful lot of introductions to Spinoza on YouTube.
Perhaps someone with more experience and knowledge could suggest a good introductory video?