Why God should not have attributes

[CMike]

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.

Links?

 

[CMike]

Link?

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And is consequently, in essence, a concession that there is no god.

 

[CMike]

G-d's 13 attributes.

The 13 Attributes of Mercy - My Jewish Learning

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The Name of God

Which supports the OP’s premise, and the fact there is no god.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.]

If a god has a ‘will,’ then it’s not a god, unworthy of worship, and does not exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

If a god is to be ‘known,’ then it’s not a god, unworthy of worship, and does not exist.

This is likely a simple concept theists are incapable of comprehending, through no fault of their own.

 

[hoosier88]

So, assuming there is a God & people meet Him/Her, Can we trust human perception of an entity that transcends reality?

Most people seem stunned by events out of the ordinary - survivors of disasters, atomic bomb survivors, earthquakes, fires, tsunami. Why would an encounter with the divine be any different?

 

[CMike]

You are probably referring to this.

Maimonides' Conception of God - My Jewish Learning

 

[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

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?

By reading His book. He is not a mystery to His children.

Maimonides talks about people like you.

God talks about people like Maimonides. Fool. Heretic. Lost.......

 

[numan]

'
The Bible is about the last place I would go to gain insight into the Divine!!

It is quite clear to me that no human conception can encompass the Divine -- rather, it is the Divine that encompasses all things.

One cannot know the Divine -- however, it is possible to manifest the Divine!!

The highest manifestations of the Divine in which my feeble spirit has participated are : Mathematics, Intellectual Beauty, Harmony, Compassion, and the like.

In one section of the Shorter Catechism of the Anglican Church, this occurs:

Question: What is the purpose of life?

Answer: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

An atheist like myself, with Neo-Platonic leanings, would change it:

To glorify BEAUTY and enjoy it forever
.

 

[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.

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

I'm not even sure that the concept truth has any sense as it relates to God, mate.

I AM WHAT I AM.

While I do not believe the story where the above came from, I do think it probably gives us some sense of the Godhead.

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

I suspect all those"aspects" are us projecting out HOPES OF WHAT GOD IS on the issue of the universe.

Do you want to go to the bullring with this?

Sure

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.

This isn't that thread?

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.

Well this opportunity might be worthy of our time if and ONLY if we do NOT use anyone's religious TEXTS as evidence of the truth.

As an exercise in philosophy, I'm interested.

As an exercise in the circular thinking of a Bible Study?

Not remotely interested.

 

[editec]

Let me give you a starting point for how I might approach this subject.


I believe (as does science) that everything in the universe is connected by electromagnatism.

Is this evidence of the universiality of the godhead? (note that I am trying to remove the anthropomorphic aspects of the concept of GOD?)

I think it is.

In fact I suspect that is physical evidence of the mechanism of the ONENESS of existence.

I do not think this ONNESS has any attributes like love or truth, but like the mythical GOD it is everywhere and it effects every interaction in the universe.

Our MINDS are electromagietic and they are within the field of the universal magnetism.

In other words, our every thought is effecting and affected by the ONENESS of the universal magnetic field.

That is, in my opinion, THE oneness that we truly share with this GODHEAD.

Our every thought, our every heartbeat is part of that universal field/

 

[amrchaos]

Why should not my god have attributes?

It is MY abstract IDOL and I can do with it hhowever I please!!

So nahhh!

 

[CMike]

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?

By reading His book. He is not a mystery to His children.

Maimonides talks about people like you.

God talks about people like Maimonides. Fool. Heretic. Lost.......

No even close. He was a great sage.

 

[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.

Links?

http://www.hashkafacircle.com/journal/R1_RS_Silence.pdf

 

[Aristotle]

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?

By reading His book. He is not a mystery to His children.

Maimonides talks about people like you.

God talks about people like Maimonides. Fool. Heretic. Lost.......

Maimonides was hardly a heretic. In fact he I believe in his Mishnah Torah refers to Christians as Avodah Zarah or idolaters. Maimonides always speaks about the Oneness of God without division or equal.

 

[numan]

'
I think it is a very unwarranted assumption to imagine that humans have any perception of Reality -- possibly some mathematicians do, but even that is debatable.

In my long and varied history of doubting, there is only one proposition which has defeated my ability to doubt: it is the first proposition of Proclus' Elements of Theology :

"Every manifold in some way participates the One."

Without getting into the technical meaning of "participates", the argument can be put into modern terminology by saying that without some form of unity in the manifold, the manifold would not be a manifold, but would disintegrate into a Borel Set -- which John Wheeler picturesquely described as "a bucket of dust." That is, the supposed manifold would disintegrate into unendingly infinitesimal fragments. It is a very clever reductio ad absurdum, particularly for the time period of Proclus, about 450 A.D. If you can come up with a really good argument demolishing Proclus, I will admit that you are a better sceptic than I, but not before. It may not be the last word in philosophy, but if anything exists, then it is true.

It's about the closest to a firm initial axiom that I have come across.

The Neo-Platonists: great stuff. But you won't get anywhere with them if you don't understand their vocabulary.

P.S. It is my view that almost all of the really valuable parts of Christianity are just second and third rate Platonism which has been transmitted in a distorted form from the Ancient World.
.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi editec: this is a very good layout, and one that I think can be used universally to include both the theistic and nontheist types and approaches.

1. where you are using laws of science, these are under the natural laws. so there you would align with other scientists, atheists, social psychologists and sociologists, using our knowledge of the world (including how human nature works and laws of govt or religion as means of expressing and organizing by values and principles to communicate) to solve problems affecting health of humans and the planet
2. where you talk about ONENESS of the universe, this aligns with Buddhist/Bahai groups and also Universalists who focus on inclusion and harmony with all things. so this can be where the spiritual values align with peace/holy spirit and other symbolism of this level.

where these intersect and connect with other people's values of what is the greater Good for the whole, then that is where this is represented by the concept of connecting in agreement in Christ or by conscience and free will to establish higher universal good/truth. So that is like going through Christ to get to God. you can certainly get there from this path.

Anyone who comes in with objections or divisions, unable to reconcile with one of the angles you offer here,
has unresolved conflicts from the past that need to be forgiven and addressed, which is part of the reconcilation process anyway.
So whatever conflicts or issues arise from trying to graft on all other groups and approaches under natural laws or spiritual laws,
these need to be resolved anyway in order to fulfill greater understanding and knowledge that all these paths are growing toward.

Thanks E and I hope you will be part of team to take this on
and expland on it, so more people will participate and then take what
they gain and apply it toward changing how they work together on real world reforms as well!

Let me give you a starting point for how I might approach this subject.


I believe (as does science) that everything in the universe is connected by electromagnatism.

Is this evidence of the universiality of the godhead? (note that I am trying to remove the anthropomorphic aspects of the concept of GOD?)

I think it is.

In fact I suspect that is physical evidence of the mechanism of the ONENESS of existence.

I do not think this ONNESS has any attributes like love or truth, but like the mythical GOD it is everywhere and it effects every interaction in the universe.

Our MINDS are electromagietic and they are within the field of the universal magnetism.

In other words, our every thought is effecting and affected by the ONENESS of the universal magnetic field.

That is, in my opinion, THE oneness that we truly share with this GODHEAD.

Our every thought, our every heartbeat is part of that universal field/

 

[emilynghiem]

Why should not my god have attributes?

It is MY abstract IDOL and I can do with it hhowever I please!!

So nahhh!

Dear Aristotle and Amrchaos:
I think the approach Aristotle is trying to emphasize is more like the Buddhist,
where you remain detached from any perceived assumptions as if you know absolute truth.

I agree to this extent, that the only chance to have any even a partial understanding of how infinite and universal God is, then we'd each have to let go of our own perceptions and bias.

However, this is NOT to say that we quit thinking at all and run around devoid of any thoughts, as this is impossible. We are human and going to remember, respond to and project our past perceptions and biases on EVERYTHING we consider and look at.

the point is to remain DETACHED, not to REJECT.

Aristotle if you become ATTACHED to rejecting all ideas about God
then you defeat the purpose because you already have a bias toward rejection.

the point is to be so open objective and neutral
that any ideas of God or no God can be equally entertained and explored in the space.

you and I and others will STILL have our pre-conceived notions and personal preferences/biases but that doesn't have to interfere with other people sharing their own!

does this make sense? and yes I AGREE
the best approach to understnading themeaning of God is
the buddhist way of letting go.

it is to empty the mind that you can be filled, not remain empty and get attached
to the idea!

p.s. so i find that "Buddhism" helps to let go in order to find universal meaning of life and God and Christian faith helps to keep consistent with what you find; "Constitutional laws" of due process and petitioning by assembly and free speech, with respect for religious and intellectual freedom, are the best way to understand Christian concepts of embodying laws by conscience, of mediation and rebuke for equal forgiveness correction and justice; and Christian prayers for forgiveness and healing are the best way to demonstrate how the holy spirit works in real life to renew and restore relations and change things to heavenly peace.