Philosophy of the Hard Problem

4)    We may all be fragments of God.

This - as an idea, not necessarily as anything certain - is one positive reason why we should talk about God. Rather than push ideas into the shadows where they fade through neglect, I consider it important to bring this one into the open.

Why do I think so?
Too often the word God is used to imply something separate, perhaps some ruler who inflicts things upon us. But if we consider ourselves as participants, as part of something larger, it can bring about a peaceful reconciliation and acceptance of what we are and our place in this world. That is, not as mere playthings or toys manipulated at the whim of some outside force, but as ourselves being that very force.

It also means, if we take common ideas of the nature of God, such as loving, benevolent, forgiving ... if we consider these things as part of our own essence, it may encourage us to bring those things forth, not out of fear of oppression or punishment, but because it is inherent and within us, it is what we are too.

2)    As I described above, God is conventionally assumed to have infinite powers. I suspect He may have finite powers - particularly finite intelligence.

Another possibility is perhaps that there are a set of laws which apply to nature and that the development of life follows these. That would not require “god” having to rethink necessarily but might simply mean that a process reached a natural conclusion for some reason based on this natural law and then either started again or that other more viable courses continued. Just a thought.

This - as an idea, not necessarily as anything certain - is one positive reason why we should talk about God. Rather than push ideas into the shadows where they fade through neglect, I consider it important to bring this one into the open.

Why do I think so?
Too often the word God is used to imply something separate, perhaps some ruler who inflicts things upon us. But if we consider ourselves as participants, as part of something larger, it can bring about a peaceful reconciliation and acceptance of what we are and our place in this world. That is, not as mere playthings or toys manipulated at the whim of some outside force, but  as ourselves being that very force.

It also means, if we take common ideas of the nature of God, such as loving, benevolent, forgiving ... if we consider there things as part of our own essence, it may encourage us to bring those things forth, not out of fear of oppression or punishment, but because it is inherent and within us, it is what we are too.

I think this is very interesting. It does fit quite nicely I think with the philosophy of Silver Birch who was quite certain that god was not in any sense a person or personal.

Too often the word God is used to imply something separate, perhaps some ruler who inflicts things upon us.

That is exactly why I don't use the word - it has all these connotations.

David

This - as an idea, not necessarily as anything certain - is one positive reason why we should talk about God. Rather than push ideas into the shadows where they fade through neglect, I consider it important to bring this one into the open.

Why do I think so?
Too often the word God is used to imply something separate, perhaps some ruler who inflicts things upon us. But if we consider ourselves as participants, as part of something larger, it can bring about a peaceful reconciliation and acceptance of what we are and our place in this world. That is, not as mere playthings or toys manipulated at the whim of some outside force, but as ourselves being that very force.

It also means, if we take common ideas of the nature of God, such as loving, benevolent, forgiving ... if we consider these things as part of our own essence, it may encourage us to bring those things forth, not out of fear of oppression or punishment, but because it is inherent and within us, it is what we are too.

I think, to be realistic, that there are far too many situations in our lives where it is obvious that we ourselves definitely don't participate in decisions regarding our fate - namely where (very) bad things happen to good people. It must be complicated. There must be powers-that-be at least separate to a large degree from our human selves determining this, or having determined for reasons of their own the system of natural laws and humanly uncontrollable circumstances that (in addition to human free will) lead to human suffering. The fine tuning of the laws of physics, and the obvious intervention of design by extremely high intelligence in the evolution of life clearly indicate some intelligent creating being(s) separate from human beings. Their connection to our human selves appears to be tenuous at best. 

I think Granville Sewell's Deistic philosophy/metaphysic of human suffering is the most complete and plausible I have encountered, and it presupposes a creator God (https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/the-bi...to-design/). None of this presupposes a specifically Christian metaphysic.

I think, to be realistic, that there are far too many situations in our lives where it is obvious that we ourselves definitely don't participate in decisions regarding our fate - namely where (very) bad things happen to good people. It must be complicated. There must be powers-that-be at least separate to a large degree from our human selves determining this, or having determined for reasons of their own the system of natural laws and humanly uncontrollable circumstances that (in addition to human free will) lead to human suffering. 

I realise that i arrived late in this thread and there are a range of topics included here.

Just to explain my position further, I was not referring to fate or suffering. These topics are worthy of discussion of course. But the rather narrower aspect I was considering was how we handle those things which are under our control. Of course to a determinist, nothing is under our control. But that seems an extreme position. It seems to me that in every moment we have possibilities, of how we think, where we place our attention, where we give precedence and where we allow ourselves to freewheel with no particular interest in our own activities or of the impact we have on both ourselves and others.

I know from my own experience that sometimes it is good to go with the flow, and others, even when alone and not interacting with others, that a deliberate intent can change things, for the better or for the worse. I'm not talking of earth-shattering events here, just everyday existence. The thoughts to which we give weight and attention become maybe not who we are, but certainly how we are. And that latter, how we are does affect the way in which we interact with others. The latter can have far-reaching effects.

It seems to me that in every moment we have possibilities, of how we think, where we place our attention, where we give precedence and where we allow ourselves to freewheel with no particular interest in our own activities or of the impact we have on both ourselves and others.

When I look back over my "life", I can easily imagine that most things occurred because they were supposed to and those that didn't occur, were not supposed to. I feel that because of the sheer number of bizarre coincidences that occurred, some so extraordinary, that I don't believe they were coincidences at all, now. I get the feeling that we may broadly choose our lives, even choosing disaster and deadly peril, but why anyone would choose some of the terrible situations that occur here, "god" only knows.

When I look back over my "life", I can easily imagine that most things occurred because they were supposed to and those that didn't occur, were not supposed to. I feel that because of the sheer number of bizarre coincidences that occurred, some so extraordinary, that I don't believe they were coincidences at all, now. I get the feeling that we may broadly choose our lives, even choosing disaster and deadly peril, but why anyone would choose some of the terrible situations that occur here, "god" only knows.

I think you're referring to 'fate' again. That is a worthwhile topic, in fact I share your experience of 'coincidences' that weren't. Though it is heading in a different direction than the one I raised. Maybe my point was too obscure, or poorly explained, I don't know.

I think you're referring to 'fate' again. That is a worthwhile topic, in fact I share your experience of 'coincidences' that weren't. Though it is heading in a different direction than the one I raised. Maybe my point was too obscure, or poorly explained, I don't know.

I suppose it depends how we define fate. Do we choose our own? I think we actually do and I think that based on revelations from NDE's. But that is still in the realms of 'unscientific'.

Another possibility is perhaps that there are a set of laws which apply to nature and that the development of life follows these. That would not require “god” having to rethink necessarily but might simply mean that a process reached a natural conclusion for some reason based on this natural law and then either started again or that other more viable courses continued. Just a thought.

Possibly that is true, but doesn't that rather imply that the entity that set those rules up, either made a mistake or needed to experiment because he couldn't foresee how they would develop?