Why God should not have attributes

[Aristotle]

First and foremost I give thanks to Moses Maimonides and Ibn-Rushd for their contribution to philosophy. With respect to the OP, I have to say after reading (Or finished reading) "The Guide for the perplexed," I am confident in my agnostic-theism.

According to Maimonides, or also known as RAMBAM, God is one essence. Not complex nor is there any multiplicity within God, nor is God anthropromorphic. According to Maimonides, humans being finite in capacity, can only ascribe to God what is humanly possible, but it renders truth flawed because our notion of God is based on the human capacity to understand the world.

For Maimonides, in his book, to say God is wise, is to ascribe to God a human attribute because we can comprehend wisdom. Or to say "God is All-Loving" is to ascribe a trait that which humans understand with respect to emotion. For Maimonides all efforts to praise God are merely indirect ways for humans to understand God. For Maimonides, God is not "All-Loving" or good, because these are finite truths based on human understanding of the world, a sort of Neo-Platonism.

Maimonides believed the highest praise we give to God is silence, because words whether it is to praise or demean God has no basis on the actual essence of God.

 

[Aristotle]

I see the average minds here would rather discuss rhetorical nonsense

 

[Bill Angel]

Here is an interesting quote about Maimonides:
“Namely, the idea common to both Freud and Maimonides is that discourse (be it a dream discourse or a public discourse under strict censorship) reveals by its organization and style what cannot, or must not, be said openly.” ~ Filip Kovacevic, ‘A Lacanian approach to dream interpretation,’ 2013, p.79, “Dreaming” 23(1): 78-89.

People do have dreams with religious content, in which a representation of god can appear symbolically or metaphorically.

 

[editec]

First and foremost I give thanks to Moses Maimonides and Ibn-Rushd for their contribution to philosophy. With respect to the OP, I have to say after reading (Or finished reading) "The Guide for the perplexed," I am confident in my agnostic-theism.

According to Maimonides, or also known as RAMBAM, God is one essence. Not complex nor is there any multiplicity within God, nor is God anthropromorphic. According to Maimonides, humans being finite in capacity, can only ascribe to God what is humanly possible, but it renders truth flawed because our notion of God is based on the human capacity to understand the world.

For Maimonides, in his book, to say God is wise, is to ascribe to God a human attribute because we can comprehend wisdom. Or to say "God is All-Loving" is to ascribe a trait that which humans understand with respect to emotion. For Maimonides all efforts to praise God are merely indirect ways for humans to understand God. For Maimonides, God is not "All-Loving" or good, because these are finite truths based on human understanding of the world, a sort of Neo-Platonism.

Maimonides believed the highest praise we give to God is silence, because words whether it is to praise or demean God has no basis on the actual essence of God.

Holy shamolies!



I totally agree!

 

[Aristotle]

Here is an interesting quote about Maimonides:
“Namely, the idea common to both Freud and Maimonides is that discourse (be it a dream discourse or a public discourse under strict censorship) reveals by its organization and style what cannot, or must not, be said openly.” ~ Filip Kovacevic, ‘A Lacanian approach to dream interpretation,’ 2013, p.79, “Dreaming” 23(1): 78-89.

People do have dreams with religious content, in which a representation of god can appear symbolically or metaphorically.

Interesting. Hower Maimonides would say one cannot speak on something he doesn't know. God is beyond comprehension, therefore to ascribe to him words like wisdom, love, truth, etc are nothing more than us measuring something we can't perceive. Which is why Maimonides believed the Bible was written in a manner that the average person can understand, because if the world is silent about God religion loses its value

 

[Bill Angel]

Here is an interesting quote about Maimonides:
“Namely, the idea common to both Freud and Maimonides is that discourse (be it a dream discourse or a public discourse under strict censorship) reveals by its organization and style what cannot, or must not, be said openly.” ~ Filip Kovacevic, ‘A Lacanian approach to dream interpretation,’ 2013, p.79, “Dreaming” 23(1): 78-89.

People do have dreams with religious content, in which a representation of god can appear symbolically or metaphorically.

Interesting. Hower Maimonides would say one cannot speak on something he doesn't know. God is beyond comprehension, therefore to ascribe to him words like wisdom, love, truth, etc are nothing more than us measuring something we can't perceive. Which is why Maimonides believed the Bible was written in a manner that the average person can understand, because if the world is silent about God religion loses its value

Maimonidies had an interesting perspective on dreams and their relation to knowlege of God.

Maimonides developed a conception of dreams, based on his psychology and epistemology, as an integral part of philosophical anthropology, which totally rejects all supernatural categories. The religious significance of Maimonides' conception lies in his identification of dreams and prophecy in terms of their essence, and their distinction in terms of their content. Maimonides attributes no cognitive significance to dreams in the sense of a spiritual process which introduces new ideas or knowledge which was not previously known. Dreams are a function of the imagination only, not of the senses or the intellect. What one learns in dreams is not a new product of one's soul or a new idea from the outside, but is rather brought up from the imaginative faculty, the storehouse of sensual and intellectual impressions: "The thing which engages greatly and earnestly man's attention while he is awake and in the full possession of his senses forms during his sleep the object of the action of his imaginative faculty." The prophetic dream is unique in that "his [the prophet's] attention must be directed to the knowledge of God.… There must be an absence of the lower desires and appetites." If the prophet fulfills these requirements while he is awake, of necessity he will, in his dreams, "perceive things very extraordinary and divine, and see nothing but God and His angels."

See: Jewish Virtual Library - Dreams

 

[editec]

I think we have about as much chance understanding a GOD as say a turnip has of understanding advanced particle physics.

No wait, probably even less than that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi A: First of all I agree with you that God being infinite in universal truth and love without measure, with no beginning and no end, then God cannot be described as any finite thing.

At the same time, in order for people to work with each other, it's perfectly understandable to represent God in various terms that people can focus on and agree how to act

God as Wisdom
God as Truth
God as Love
God as Life or Creation
God as Universal Laws of Good will for all humanity etc.

As long as we AGREE what aspect of this God we are talking about,
as manifested in some practical way or else there is no purpose if it doesn't affect us,
then we can still agree on a purpose, solve problems, and get something positive achieved.

First and foremost I give thanks to Moses Maimonides and Ibn-Rushd for their contribution to philosophy. With respect to the OP, I have to say after reading (Or finished reading) "The Guide for the perplexed," I am confident in my agnostic-theism.

According to Maimonides, or also known as RAMBAM, God is one essence. Not complex nor is there any multiplicity within God, nor is God anthropromorphic. According to Maimonides, humans being finite in capacity, can only ascribe to God what is humanly possible, but it renders truth flawed because our notion of God is based on the human capacity to understand the world.

For Maimonides, in his book, to say God is wise, is to ascribe to God a human attribute because we can comprehend wisdom. Or to say "God is All-Loving" is to ascribe a trait that which humans understand with respect to emotion. For Maimonides all efforts to praise God are merely indirect ways for humans to understand God. For Maimonides, God is not "All-Loving" or good, because these are finite truths based on human understanding of the world, a sort of Neo-Platonism.

Maimonides believed the highest praise we give to God is silence, because words whether it is to praise or demean God has no basis on the actual essence of God.

Sure this is one way you can show respect by
"being still and know that God is God" Psalm 46:10

But just the fact that you posted here in order SHARE wisdom with others,
then isn't there value and purpose in recognizing part of universal/God's truth
and sharing to establish that with others? So the purpose of God's laws/truth
is not just to exist but to be understood and shared? And don't we as humans
do that by assigning words and principles in writing so we can work out
a common understanding of what these universal laws are that are so important to SHARE?

If it was enough to remain silent,
then why didn't you? Why did you choose to speak and write
except there was value in that to be SHARED?

 

[emilynghiem]

Here is an interesting quote about Maimonides:
“Namely, the idea common to both Freud and Maimonides is that discourse (be it a dream discourse or a public discourse under strict censorship) reveals by its organization and style what cannot, or must not, be said openly.” ~ Filip Kovacevic, ‘A Lacanian approach to dream interpretation,’ 2013, p.79, “Dreaming” 23(1): 78-89.

People do have dreams with religious content, in which a representation of god can appear symbolically or metaphorically.

Interesting. Hower Maimonides would say one cannot speak on something he doesn't know. God is beyond comprehension, therefore to ascribe to him words like wisdom, love, truth, etc are nothing more than us measuring something we can't perceive. Which is why Maimonides believed the Bible was written in a manner that the average person can understand, because if the world is silent about God religion loses its value

Then why are YOU speaking of this if you weren't sure there was "universal truth" to it worth sharing?

A, do I need to know the whole of how science works, all the infinite laws out there which we may not have even discovered yet, just to use my limited understanding of gravity and laws of physics to set up a bookshelf to work right, and explain to science students at least the part I know of these laws? So we can at least make use of THAT part of infinite truth?

A, do you know how love works, where it comes from, and why we humans share it?
And yet we can enjoy talking and learning about love and how to share and express it.
So together we can share and grow in our understanding of the power of love
that comes from some source we may never be able to fully grasp or perceive!

Okay with you if we TRY to put abstract concepts in words, so we CAN try to share
what we understand, and LEARN how to appreciate and work with these forces in life?

My friends who practice spiritual healing, even an atheist friend who helps people with forgiveness and recovery issues without religion, can't tell you where all this abundance of healing grace and energy comes from scientifically. But they are going to share what works to help other stop the destructive cycle of addiction, abuse, crime violence, etc.

Whatever you call these things or process, why not share it if it helps people improve? Does it really have to be perfect? Do people need to be perfect in knowledge before teaching?

How the heck is anyone going to build on our past knowledge and experience, including mistakes in perception, if you are saying not to talk of things we don't fully know or perceive.
How do you expect humanity to reach a mature understanding of what we CAN grasp?

If you think we will get there by magic, then you must have more faith than I do.
I see people learn by sharing, and that takes words which of course are limited and finite.
I am not going to condemn people for the words they use, but will try to get to the meaning they are trying to express and at least work with that much!

You must mean something else by your words, I'm not sure what, but
please explain because this does not seem possible to expect people not
to speak of things they can't perceive or know fully. By our nature, we
ARE going to ask questions where we don't understand, and share
answers with other people using whatever language parables or experiences we have.

That process is not going to be perfect, but we are designed
to learn by trial and error, applying intellectual free will and reason.

Do you at least agree that assigning words to abstract principles or concepts
beyond our perception is an important tool for human beings to learn and grow in life?
If you meant something else, please explain.

If you have important citations or points to add to the
thread on Consensus on God, please feel free to post there also.

What issues or concepts you feel are so beyond comprehension
or reconciling that they should not even be talked about in words?
If you can perceive of a concept to know it is in the human mind and realm
or experience, isn't that already on a level that we can assign words to and talk about?

???

 

[emilynghiem]

I think we have about as much chance understanding a GOD as say a turnip has of understanding advanced particle physics.

No wait, probably even less than that.

Hi editec yes and no.
I agree we can never contain or grasp the whole of what God's infinite truth or being are.

However, for the aspects we CAN understand
I do believe the various religions are designed to help further that process.

Do you want to go to the bullring with this?
If you want to explore irrconcileable issues you think
we can never understand, you can post them on an exploratory
thread I started for Consensus on God.

I was hoping to start with moderators who are willing to address different people and views. I think we can draw out an understanding of all things that matter to us, and in the process also recognize this comes from the same source which people call God.

Let me know if you want to explore this issue or statement more!
I think it's a challenge worth taking on and overdue for resolution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Aristotle:
I'm sorry I did not mean to discourage you from replying.
I hope this means you are not taking your own advice and
not speaking of things you don't know in full.

As for quantifying things we cannot fully perceive,
what about Justice?

If we've never seen justice, don't agree what it requires,
how can we have a word for it and descriptions that
ATTEMPT to define what this is, etc.

Are you saying we should not try to quantify
understand or establish Justice
simply because we cannot perfectly realize it?

 

[Aristotle]

Here is an interesting quote about Maimonides:
“Namely, the idea common to both Freud and Maimonides is that discourse (be it a dream discourse or a public discourse under strict censorship) reveals by its organization and style what cannot, or must not, be said openly.” ~ Filip Kovacevic, ‘A Lacanian approach to dream interpretation,’ 2013, p.79, “Dreaming” 23(1): 78-89.

People do have dreams with religious content, in which a representation of god can appear symbolically or metaphorically.

Interesting. Hower Maimonides would say one cannot speak on something he doesn't know. God is beyond comprehension, therefore to ascribe to him words like wisdom, love, truth, etc are nothing more than us measuring something we can't perceive. Which is why Maimonides believed the Bible was written in a manner that the average person can understand, because if the world is silent about God religion loses its value

Maimonidies had an interesting perspective on dreams and their relation to knowlege of God.

Maimonides developed a conception of dreams, based on his psychology and epistemology, as an integral part of philosophical anthropology, which totally rejects all supernatural categories. The religious significance of Maimonides' conception lies in his identification of dreams and prophecy in terms of their essence, and their distinction in terms of their content. Maimonides attributes no cognitive significance to dreams in the sense of a spiritual process which introduces new ideas or knowledge which was not previously known. Dreams are a function of the imagination only, not of the senses or the intellect. What one learns in dreams is not a new product of one's soul or a new idea from the outside, but is rather brought up from the imaginative faculty, the storehouse of sensual and intellectual impressions: "The thing which engages greatly and earnestly man's attention while he is awake and in the full possession of his senses forms during his sleep the object of the action of his imaginative faculty." The prophetic dream is unique in that "his [the prophet's] attention must be directed to the knowledge of God.… There must be an absence of the lower desires and appetites." If the prophet fulfills these requirements while he is awake, of necessity he will, in his dreams, "perceive things very extraordinary and divine, and see nothing but God and His angels."

See: Jewish Virtual Library - Dreams

Hmm I wonder if this was a premise to the works he wrote in the Guide For The Perplexed.

 

[Aristotle]

Dear Aristotle:
I'm sorry I did not mean to discourage you from replying.
I hope this means you are not taking your own advice and
not speaking of things you don't know in full.

As for quantifying things we cannot fully perceive,
what about Justice?

If we've never seen justice, don't agree what it requires,
how can we have a word for it and descriptions that
ATTEMPT to define what this is, etc.

Are you saying we should not try to quantify
understand or establish Justice
simply because we cannot perfectly realize it?

Yes...

According to Maimonides one cannot quantify God's attributes as it would be a direct violation of Judaic Philosophy. There is no multiplicity within God. Maimonides cautions that if we do quantify qualities of God such as "All-knowing, All-Merciful" etc then we must answer whether the attributes come before the other or whether the measure of love is equitable to the measure of justice. Because justice requires retribution despite love, how justice is carried out, love must be suspended if one is to be objective in carrying out justice.

In addition Maimonides believes that concepts like love, wisdom, justice, are comprehensible things that we define our lives. To say God IS one of these things is to know the true essence of God which no human can comprehend.

 

[Aristotle]

I think we have about as much chance understanding a GOD as say a turnip has of understanding advanced particle physics.

No wait, probably even less than that.

Indeed...

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes...

According to Maimonides one cannot quantify God's attributes as it would be a direct violation of Judaic Philosophy. There is no multiplicity within God. Maimonides cautions that if we do quantify qualities of God such as "All-knowing, All-Merciful" etc then we must answer whether the attributes come before the other or whether the measure of love is equitable to the measure of justice. Because justice requires retribution despite love, how justice is carried out, love must be suspended if one is to be objective in carrying out justice.

In addition Maimonides believes that concepts like love, wisdom, justice, are comprehensible things that we define our lives. To say God IS one of these things is to know the true essence of God which no human can comprehend.

It is talking about the diverse MANIFESTATIONS of God.
God from God's perspective is one, universal, infinite etc.

But reflections of God from man's perspective is infinite in its facets
God as Wisdom
God as Love
God as Truth
God as Justice
God as Goodwill
God as Universe
God as Life
hence the 99 names of God
there is still only one God but by the time humans try to make
sense of all the impact and influence this God has on us
it comes out different for each person and situation!

You see this as a problem, and true it gets politicized when people
want to push one side or appraoch to God more than others.

but honestly, to understand as much as we can as humans,
it takes seeing and studying all the angles.
thus the different tribes and denominations and faith traditions
all focusing and expounding on a different angle to understanding God.

We are describing the same process,
but you may see problems and object to it
while I am saying let's use this process and put all the knowledge together.
Like volumes in an encyclopedia set, or books in a library to be indexed and referenced!

it is still finite compared with God being infinite
but at least we can agree on the comprehensible
parts that have real life application.

That is the importance anyway, is how are we going to apply this.
So let's focus on that, shall we? Altogether now?

 

[emilynghiem]

I think we have about as much chance understanding a GOD as say a turnip has of understanding advanced particle physics.

No wait, probably even less than that.

Indeed...

You both make me smile [which I thank you for since I had a stressful day, thank you!]

The difference is
the turnip is not meant to understand physics.

however, man IS designed to question, understand
and appreciate our relationship with God [however limited, incomplete or imperfect]

big difference!

[There are more chances that my name is John or Mary Smith.
Since my parents are Vietnamese, there are more chances my last name is Nguyen or Tran.
But my name is "Emily Nghiem"
though there are only a handful of others I found with that name, very few in comparison.

So just because something is thousands of times more likely
doesn't mean you dismiss the event that turns out to occur in real life!

If I am meant to be born as Emily Nghiem, then that's what happens.
That is how God's will works, and the human will/mind/conscience is designed to study and learn how to reconcile our wills.]

 

[The Irish Ram]

First and foremost I give thanks to Moses Maimonides and Ibn-Rushd for their contribution to philosophy. With respect to the OP, I have to say after reading (Or finished reading) "The Guide for the perplexed," I am confident in my agnostic-theism.

According to Maimonides, or also known as RAMBAM, God is one essence. Not complex nor is there any multiplicity within God, nor is God anthropromorphic. According to Maimonides, humans being finite in capacity, can only ascribe to God what is humanly possible, but it renders truth flawed because our notion of God is based on the human capacity to understand the world.

For Maimonides, in his book, to say God is wise, is to ascribe to God a human attribute because we can comprehend wisdom. Or to say "God is All-Loving" is to ascribe a trait that which humans understand with respect to emotion. For Maimonides all efforts to praise God are merely indirect ways for humans to understand God. For Maimonides, God is not "All-Loving" or good, because these are finite truths based on human understanding of the world, a sort of Neo-Platonism.

Maimonides believed the highest praise we give to God is silence, because words whether it is to praise or demean God has no basis on the actual essence of God.

Maimonides' little brain understands Maimonides, not God.
1 John 4:19 - We love him, because he first loved us.

It is the seed from where our love springs.
Why try to gain understanding of the Creator from a creation, rather than the Creator Himself?
Want to know God? Read the Bible. Want man's limited understanding? Read Maimonides

 

[Aristotle]

First and foremost I give thanks to Moses Maimonides and Ibn-Rushd for their contribution to philosophy. With respect to the OP, I have to say after reading (Or finished reading) "The Guide for the perplexed," I am confident in my agnostic-theism.

According to Maimonides, or also known as RAMBAM, God is one essence. Not complex nor is there any multiplicity within God, nor is God anthropromorphic. According to Maimonides, humans being finite in capacity, can only ascribe to God what is humanly possible, but it renders truth flawed because our notion of God is based on the human capacity to understand the world.

For Maimonides, in his book, to say God is wise, is to ascribe to God a human attribute because we can comprehend wisdom. Or to say "God is All-Loving" is to ascribe a trait that which humans understand with respect to emotion. For Maimonides all efforts to praise God are merely indirect ways for humans to understand God. For Maimonides, God is not "All-Loving" or good, because these are finite truths based on human understanding of the world, a sort of Neo-Platonism.

Maimonides believed the highest praise we give to God is silence, because words whether it is to praise or demean God has no basis on the actual essence of God.

Maimonides' little brain understands Maimonides, not God.
1 John 4:19 - We love him, because he first loved us.

It is the seed from where our love springs.
Why try to gain understanding of the Creator from a creation, rather than the Creator Himself?
Want to know God? Read the Bible. Want man's limited understanding? Read Maimonides

Well millions of Jews love Maimonides and Rambam is well respected in the philosophy community. Maimonides talks about people like you. The common people have very little understanding of God which is why the common man is so zealous about God. The Bible ought to not be taken literal. The compilation of books which is called the "Bible" have fables and tales with metaphorical and allegorical meaning. You have little understanding of God reading a book.

How do you understand a being who is incomprehensible and is beyond logic, intelligence or above anything human?

 

[Aristotle]

Yes...

According to Maimonides one cannot quantify God's attributes as it would be a direct violation of Judaic Philosophy. There is no multiplicity within God. Maimonides cautions that if we do quantify qualities of God such as "All-knowing, All-Merciful" etc then we must answer whether the attributes come before the other or whether the measure of love is equitable to the measure of justice. Because justice requires retribution despite love, how justice is carried out, love must be suspended if one is to be objective in carrying out justice.

In addition Maimonides believes that concepts like love, wisdom, justice, are comprehensible things that we define our lives. To say God IS one of these things is to know the true essence of God which no human can comprehend.

It is talking about the diverse MANIFESTATIONS of God.
God from God's perspective is one, universal, infinite etc.

But reflections of God from man's perspective is infinite in its facets
God as Wisdom
God as Love
God as Truth
God as Justice
God as Goodwill
God as Universe
God as Life
hence the 99 names of God
there is still only one God but by the time humans try to make
sense of all the impact and influence this God has on us
it comes out different for each person and situation!

You see this as a problem, and true it gets politicized when people
want to push one side or appraoch to God more than others.

but honestly, to understand as much as we can as humans,
it takes seeing and studying all the angles.
thus the different tribes and denominations and faith traditions
all focusing and expounding on a different angle to understanding God.

We are describing the same process,
but you may see problems and object to it
while I am saying let's use this process and put all the knowledge together.
Like volumes in an encyclopedia set, or books in a library to be indexed and referenced!

it is still finite compared with God being infinite
but at least we can agree on the comprehensible
parts that have real life application.

That is the importance anyway, is how are we going to apply this.
So let's focus on that, shall we? Altogether now?

Logic states that you cannot comprehend something incomprehensible.

If God is incomprehensible you cannot say God is "wisdom" or "love" because these are concepts we comprehend as human beings. To say God is wisdom is to indirect state a fact not about God, but about the world God designed which YOU THINK reflects something about God's essence. The 99 names of God which in the Muslim faith are mere attributes of the One Lord of the Worlds, are concepts we 'know' based on our limited understanding. God is beyond the 99 names and therefore, according to Maimonides are nothing more than human conjectures about God. Allah or whatever name you choose to call God is beyond human language. Which is why the holy books are rendered null and void and are merely human guides for moral competency.

 

[CMike]

G-d is called different names in the Torah based on the main attribute he is showing.

The Name of God