Gender Identity

[onesteptwostep]

Yup, that's the million dollar question, applied to humans. God on the other hand, theologically speaking, his essence is his existence. Kinda hard to wrap your head around, but that's basically one of the most fundamental notions in Thomist philosophy.

 

[Muteki]

I'd say the idea of something preceding existence without somehow "existing" by some other definition of "existing" just sounds like a comical infinite logic loop.
If we want to imply there's another -axis- besides "existence" and "non-existence" we'll at least need some kind of sensible evidence that isn't just purely speculative.

Though bound to existence and limited as we are, there's likely no way for us to gather even vague evidence of that kind whatsoever anyway.

That being said, I find the idea that reality really could be an infinite spectrum of both greater and smaller systems, regardless of whether we consider those systems as "conscious", to be much more sensible with what we could reasonably hypothesize.

 

[AntaresVII]

consciousness and the body only correlate. it is unsure if they are the same thing.

A nice point for contemplation, AK, thanks.

~

I think the issue here is that you think if God exists, it must be an entity that is subsiding within our natural (i.e. naturalism) world. Basically, existence precedes the essence of God.

No, there's a difference between naturalism and including the supernatural in your definition of reality. I'm doing the latter.

But that's not how "God" works. For God, his essence is his existence. There's a good way of saying this, and I think the Catholics have it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus

God is even above existence, because his essence is something that necessitates it. "Existence", to be in creation, is something God also has made. This is what it means to be transcendent over creation.

It sounds like according to this, God's essence (and thus actuality) is existence, which indeed does necessitate existence, but does not put God above existence, but rather exactly and precisely on level with it. It would seem rather to support my idea that existence per se is the aim of existence, with God being the essence and actuality of existence.

And no, "existence" is not "to be, in creation" but simply "to be".
Redefining "existence" to exclude your image of God just means that whatever words you now use to describe God as being are the words I use to define the world/the universe. And if you leave no words at all, you lose the ability to claim the being of God.
Also notice, it is most commonly said, God is, God is real, God exists. Why aren't Christians at large being taught their own heresies? Perhaps because Christianity doesn't actually hold some alternate definition of existence, and "existence", as normally understood, is something God must have if there is anything that bears the title of "God".

Your idea is that for something to exist, existence must come first.

I don't believe I said or necessitated that. Existence has no meaning without the things that exist, and things have no meaning unless they exist, so I would think existence as a potentiality and as an actuality occur simultaneously.

 

[Black Rose]

God exists yet is separate from creation which exists in another way.

God is pure consciousness separate from creation.

creation emerged from God's pure consciousness.

They say Jesus was fully God and fully man.

 

[onesteptwostep]

consciousness and the body only correlate. it is unsure if they are the same thing.

A nice point for contemplation, AK, thanks.

~

I think the issue here is that you think if God exists, it must be an entity that is subsiding within our natural (i.e. naturalism) world. Basically, existence precedes the essence of God.

No, there's a difference between naturalism and including the supernatural in your definition of reality. I'm doing the latter.

But that's not how "God" works. For God, his essence is his existence. There's a good way of saying this, and I think the Catholics have it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus

God is even above existence, because his essence is something that necessitates it. "Existence", to be in creation, is something God also has made. This is what it means to be transcendent over creation.

It sounds like according to this, God's essence (and thus actuality) is existence, which indeed does necessitate existence, but does not put God above existence, but rather exactly and precisely on level with it. It would seem rather to support my idea that existence per se is the aim of existence, with God being the essence and actuality of existence.

And no, "existence" is not "to be, in creation" but simply "to be".
Redefining "existence" to exclude your image of God just means that whatever words you now use to describe God as being are the words I use to define the world/the universe. And if you leave no words at all, you lose the ability to claim the being of God.
Also notice, it is most commonly said, God is, God is real, God exists. Why aren't Christians at large being taught their own heresies? Perhaps because Christianity doesn't actually hold some alternate definition of existence, and "existence", as normally understood, is something God must have if there is anything that bears the title of "God".

Your idea is that for something to exist, existence must come first.

I don't believe I said or necessitated that. Existence has no meaning without the things that exist, and things have no meaning unless they exist, so I would think existence as a potentiality and as an actuality occur simultaneously.

"And if you leave no words at all, you lose the ability to claim the being of God."

He is who He is.

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ "

God would also exist without language, too. I'll retort: everything in creation is in the purview of God. Even rationality.

 

[Black Rose]

God exists as pure consciousness. This is rational.

 

[AntaresVII]

[Accidental post]

 

[AntaresVII]

"And if you leave no words at all, you lose the ability to claim the being of God."

He is who He is.

Ah, but you said:

Also, that "what is" is to me, what God has created. "What is" is 'creation'.

So to say "God is" necessarily implies that God exists within God's own creation, which we both agree makes no sense.

And of course if God exists God exists whether or not you have the words to communicate it. My point is that your claim implies that God does not exist, with the one loophole of God existing but you not being able to communicate the concept.
Your claim that all existence is within creation either denies the existence of God, or makes the idea impossible to formulate, either option being quite and obviously unreasonable.

And rationality being in God's purview does not mean that God's existence contradicts reason (else we might have disproven the possibility of God — people have certainly tried). It is one thing to believe in a God that cannot be logically proven, it is quite another to believe in one that can be logically disproven.
And if we're talking about Christianity here, Christ is supposed to be the logos (word, logic) of God which implies just a little that God operates logically. Also, none of the actual beliefs of mainstream Christianity are logically contradictory, being quite simply that things that contradict logic cannot be true. The single most certain system we have in this world is the relationship between logic and truth, that being that all truth is logically sound, no truth is logically unsound.
If God is the essence and actualization of truth, God is also the essence and actualization of logic. That doesn't mean logic exists beyond God any more than God beyond logic, just that logic and God are as inseparable as God and existence.

Anyway, if you deny logic, there is no possible aim of discourse on the matter, as you cannot actually know anything about God if logic does not apply, since contradictions are now acceptable.
I know of no belief of any major religion that is actually provably untrue, as anything which is illogical must be.
It is one thing to be beyond reasonable expectation, or even beyond understanding, but it is another cake entirely to be beyond logic.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think we need to step back and go into Greek philosophy a bit.

Aristotle was famous for invoking the categories, and sought to categorize everything by their essential nature rather than by their accidents. By accidents, I mean the characteristics that are superfluous to the object or thing, such as the color of someone's skin. The color of someone's skin does not dictate whether he or she is a person- it is the very nature, or essential nature of the person that makes the person a person. The color of someone's skin is an accident, as well as the color of their eyes, their height, facial complexion and so on.

For God however, his essential nature, is what who he is. "Existence" as applied to the Christian God, is an accident.

If we were to take on the logical structure which you've gleamed from me:

1) God exists
2) "Exists" must take on natural or supernatural means
3) "Exists" equals all things 'that is'
4) 'That is' also equates to 'God'
5) 'That is' is also applied to creation
6) Conclusion: If something 'that is' exists, it must also be in creation, which is naturalistic

Basically, you see a contradiction with the conclusion and the structure, starting from 2. You feel that existence must preclude creation because of this logic.

However the logic which I am forwarding is that existence itself is a property, an accident of the entity God. Yes, God 'exists', but 'exists' and 'his existence' are two different concepts here. His property of existence is not his essential nature.

And as we've gone over before, in Thomist philosophy, (Thomist is referring to Thomas Aquinas), God's essential nature basically necessitates his 'existence'. Existence for God is an accident of God.

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[Black Rose]

God does not exist?

God is God

Gods ontology is a null tautology (non-existence)

 

[Black Rose]

With singularity technology, a persons biology can take on any form. Sex will be easily changed. Furries definitely will exist.

Catgirls will be the peak of civilizations achievement.

 

[AntaresVII]

Unless changing the makeup of every one of your cells unavoidably did something to interfere with consciousness, making you a different person, or maybe, uh, . . . dead.

But hey if it works I wouldn't complain.

And if the cyborg thing works out the "I personally identify as an apache attack helicopter" thing would be totally feasible.

I'd bet 10 bucks though that we eventually find out that human biology is the peak of technological possibility as far as balancing autonomy, mobility, replication, and longevity of function.
And if I'm wrong it's totally worth 10 dollars.

 

[Grayman]

Gender identity and gender roles are not equivalent.

Anyways, when it comes to gender roles, its really about if you are a hamburger person a salad person.

 

[Black Rose]

The human body is a fractal. DNA regulates the system for the fractal to unfold. X and Y chromosomes are part of the code. All that needs to be done is to regulate a persons system in a different way and gender will change.

Same for catgirls growing ears and tails. (Morphic regulation)

 

[AntaresVII]

But the issue I'm calling into question is if such an invasive operation (i.e., altering brain cells) would interfere problematically with consciousness (e.g. ending it, either by replacing it with another, or just killing the subject).

Sex fluidity is less cool if you die.

 

[Black Rose]

Function can be regulated so no loss occurs. How regulation occurs will matter because alterations must be gradual and smooth or yes death/loss of consciousness occurs. Already hormone treatments exist. Biological changes will happen in a biological way. More sophisticated ways than now.

 

[Grayman]

But the issue I'm calling into question is if such an invasive operation (i.e., altering brain cells) would interfere problematically with consciousness (e.g. ending it, either by replacing it with another, or just killing the subject).

Sex fluidity is less cool if you die.

Your consciousness ends and begins every second as your brain continually changes. If consciousness exists, it's not cemented in who you are but in the experience of the change internally and externally.
If there is a true experiencer, it exists not in the mind but instead through the mind as a conduit to this reality.
Arguably the only true identity one has is in the choices you make and not the experiences that make you. Nor is it in the biologic construct through which you are forced to look through in order to perceive this reality.
Arguably the greatest excersize in free will is in choosing who you are abstractly and not limiting yourself to biological and mechanical distinctions.
If you limit your identity to the expression of oneself, you limit yourself to a reality that defines you, by its limitations, instead of you defining yourself.

We we be more likely to discover our True Selfs if we untied from our hormonal bonds but then perhaps we can learn something from the finite experience before we move on into the next. Perhaps it would be better to just look deep within and detach and seek out that which is you.

 

[washti]

Anyways, when it comes to gender roles, its really about if you are a hamburger person a salad person.

What gender is an artificial meat lover?

 

[Grayman]

Anyways, when it comes to gender roles, its really about if you are a hamburger person a salad person.

What gender is an artificial meat lover?

If you are a believer in the quantum religion of probability then it's not determined until you observe it.

 

[washti]

Anyways, when it comes to gender roles, its really about if you are a hamburger person a salad person.

What gender is an artificial meat lover?

If you are a believer in the quantum religion of probability then it's not determined until you observe it.

I will mark all dates on the calendar, then.

 

[Grayman]

Anyways, when it comes to gender roles, its really about if you are a hamburger person a salad person.

What gender is an artificial meat lover?

If you are a believer in the quantum religion of probability then it's not determined until you observe it.

I will mark all dates on the calendar, then.

Dude, you have a paper calendar?! Next, you're going to tell me, you eat breakfast. I thought you were a 18 to 20 year old like the rest of these forumites.

 

[AntaresVII]

Hey! I eat breakfast

. . . occasionally.



. . . And so the thread fell, another victim of the lighthearted.
But, it was said, none knew the day when the young fools would try again to rise to the summit of the mount of wisdom, only to realize they were, in fact, on the hill of folly.
No one could say when they would once again search out the higher places, even if they never truly reached their aims.
In those days they called it ambition, in those days they called it heroism. In those days they thought they were free. And truly, how could they have known?


Onestep:
I'm not ceding my point, I believe I can make yet again a rebuttal, but I don't really want to. Partly because it's an off-topic incidental question that we've been talking about, and partly because I would rather discuss the main thread anyway.
I think we can agree to call the debate unsettled, and move on or relocate for the sake of keeping on topic.

On topic:

The case being that as far as we have technology there is no way to alter a persons sex (and no guarantee that it will ever be possible, though of course it may be), should we focus primarily on providing troubled people with comforting illusions, or try to remove the troubles at their source by bringing people to a state of acceptance of themselves as they are, in their true nature, without prejudice as to how they should be biologically constructed based on that nature?

If gender identity should not be viewed as tied to sex, why should we pretend to change someone's sex to "match" their gender?

Does it make any sense at all to say a person was born into the wrong body? By what mechanism was that accomplished? And wherein lies the fault that makes it possible?

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around, does the tree feel lonely?

What if all the uncertainty in regards to sex and gender is more a consequence of our having a stupid amount of free time to kill in low-quality self-reflection than of an actual crisis of human oppression?

What if being male and feeling more feminine or vice versa is fundamentally different from actually being female or male?

 

[AntaresVII]

I changed my mind.
Reading over it again, this is too easy to pass up.
Should probably still change threads for this though.

For God however, his essential nature, is what who he is. "Existence" as applied to the Christian God, is an accident.

If we were to take on the logical structure which you've gleamed from me:

1) God exists
2) "Exists" must take on natural or supernatural means
3) "Exists" equals all things 'that is'
4) 'That is' also equates to 'God'
5) 'That is' is also applied to creation
6) Conclusion: If something 'that is' exists, it must also be in creation, which is naturalistic

Basically, you see a contradiction with the conclusion and the structure, starting from 2. You feel that existence must preclude creation because of this logic.

However the logic which I am forwarding is that existence itself is a property, an accident of the entity God. Yes, God 'exists', but 'exists' and 'his existence' are two different concepts here. His property of existence is not his essential nature.

You say that the essential nature of God does not include existence.
Therefore, God would be God, whether or not God existed.

Unfortunately, that's not how existing works. If you don't exist, your essential nature is no more or less than the property of non-existence.
All other properties imply the property of existence, as a property is by definition perceivable or measurable (except non-existence property, which is just the absence of any properties, so technically measurable as a null reading), being the traits of an existing thing/being.
You have to exist to have any other nature, and so existence is part of the essential nature of all existing things.
So either there is no such thing as God, or existence forms the underlying part of God's essential nature.

This is fun.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I should mention that this is metaphysics, not physics.

Other concepts aren't reliant on things existing too; for example, mathematics. Justice is another one.

I recommend that you start with Kant, (a priori), for us to actually have a fruitful discussion.

 

[Black Rose]

math explains by describing the function of the brain and biology.

a function can be made explaining the program which evolves a conscious.

a function exists that explains gender as well.

a.i. can mathematically be made a gender.

gender in a.i. is mathematically described.

math is metaphysical so anything in math like a.i. or gender is metaphysical.

 

[AntaresVII]

gender in a.i. is mathematically described.

math is metaphysical so anything in math like a.i. or gender is metaphysical.

A block of wood can be mathematically described.
The form is metaphysical, the item whose form is described is physical.

And I'm not sure that applies to gender. i.e. the forms of gender are metaphysical, and the instances physical. Is gender ever physical? Is it a product of biology or of consciousness?

 

[Black Rose]

The wires in the brain form a dynamic network. Network math can in a given instance make networks that refer to themselves as a gender. If I believe myself to be a certain gender it is because the wires in me arranged to prefer the gender I said I am.

 

[AntaresVII]

I should mention that this is metaphysics, not physics.

Other concepts aren't reliant on things existing too; for example, mathematics. Justice is another one.

Justice is dependent on morality is dependent on human aims/purposes.
Human aims are dependent on humans, and humans exist.

Mathematics is metaphysical but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (have properties).
Mathematics is the descriptor of forms, the means by which properties are measured. As such it does not have properties in the usual sense, but it also clearly is not a null-property entity. It exists abstractly, conceptually, yes, but it exists.
Its essential properties being the description and measurement of forms, it cannot be properly described or measured except by itself, which would seem to mean its existence is self-determined, and thus arbitrary, tautological, and unlimited (being the setter of limitations, the jailer cannot be locked in his own cell whilst he has the keys).
But mathematics does have limitations. It has definite and fixed form, being the descriptor of reality. Without reality, mathematics has nothing to measure, no form to describe. It's concepts become meaningless, devoid of reference. Mathematics is dependent on physical reality. The consistency and accuracy of the measurements and form-descriptions of mathematics to reality is the measurement and form-description of the properties of mathematics. Reality, by being measurable, implies the existence of measurement. By following forms, the existence of the forms.
So mathematics as a concept exists as a descriptor of non-conceptual reality. Sans concrete reality the concepts are meaningless, thus the essential form of mathematics is as an abstraction of reality.
Thus the metaphysical is dependent on the physical, the description on the described.
So if God exists only metaphysically, God's existence is dependent on the existence of physical reality.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I should mention that this is metaphysics, not physics.

Other concepts aren't reliant on things existing too; for example, mathematics. Justice is another one.

Thus the metaphysical is dependent on the physical, the description on the described.
So if God exists only metaphysically, God's existence is dependent on the existence of physical reality.

But God is above creation, like we've already noted. He is above any metaphysical thing or any physical thing, he transcends over all, because he is the Creator.

If we say that God is dependent on anything to exist, that means God is not God. God is wholly independent of the world, and does not have to depend on the world to be. He isn't tied to physical reality- or even anything metaphysical. God's essence necessitates existence, not the other way around. What God is is supernatural, not natural.

As for math or justice not existing.. the question I would raise is, if all matter were to suddenly vanish, would math cease to exist? Or would they exist in some form?

 

[Black Rose]

Consciousness precedes existence because that is what God is. (consciousness)

God must know God and God must know humans. That is consciousness.

Before creation and only was God, was only God as conscious.

 

[Muteki]

See what I mean when I said it's just a comical loop, this debate carousel isn't really getting anywhere. Either someone finds a good way to break the logic cycle or it's just a never-ending coin flip.
A more compelling answer likely lies somewhere in a duality of both sides and to think of them as exclusively opposing may be a mistake in itself. I also think your all too fixed on defining existence when the model likely works better to think of reality as layered, where things can exist separately on differing layers while still being loosely connected.
Not sure if finding a satisfying answer in this way is possible, or even matters, but this makes more sense to me than this back and worth.

 

[AntaresVII]

See what I mean

Yes


I'm in favor of at least a version of the layered existence idea, with the known and unknown separated, and the "created" world/universe having part in both realms.

Consciousness precedes existence because that is what God is. (consciousness)

Consciousness can at best occur simultaneously with existence.
There must be something for consciousness to occur, because the consciousness must be conscious of something or "consciousness" is meaningless.

But God is above creation, like we've already noted. He is above any metaphysical thing or any physical thing, he transcends over all, because he is the Creator.

If we say that God is dependent on anything to exist, that means God is not God. God is wholly independent of the world, and does not have to depend on the world to be.

I know this. My point was to show that your claim concluded in contradicting this. You're arguing against your own point here.

He isn't tied to physical reality- or even anything metaphysical.

What about logic? I'm pretty sure we covered that the entire concept of God breaks down if we place God beyond logic.
And logic makes this claim problematic.

God's essence necessitates existence, not the other way around.

That's what I'm saying. The fact that God has essence necessitates God's existence, because essence without existence is impossible, as I explained.

What God is is supernatural, not natural.

For the, wait, let me count, ah, seventh time, that depends on what you count as natural. You are, yet again, claiming to refute my argument by using a key term in a different way. I believe they call this fallacy equivocation.

As for math or justice not existing.. the question I would raise is, if all matter were to suddenly vanish, would math cease to exist? Or would they exist in some form?

Math would indeed. If there is no matter, there is nothing to apply the mathematics to, and no one to apply it. Math is conceptual, and consciousnesses are needed to conceive concepts, and consciousnesses require things to be conscious of, and math alone won't do there because in an empty void there is no reference between objects from which to discover number. Thus there must be concrete from which to infer the abstract, the physical world must exist for there to be a metaphysical.

Justice would definitely not exist, because justice assumes morality, and morality assumes aims, and aims necessitates conscious beings to have them, and consciousness, as I've covered, necessitates a physical reality.


To try, as Muteki suggests, to leave the loop:
If God has power over human existence and caused it to occur, does that not imply God wants humans to exist? And if God wants humans to exist, can there be any more God-centered behaviour than seeking to build and ensure optimal existence?

This is basically the core of my idea with the assumption that God exists.
What do you make of it?

 

[onesteptwostep]

because essence without existence is impossible, as I explained.

And I start by telling you otherwise.



"Existence precedes essence" - Sartre, atheistic existential philosopher

Christians believe otherwise of God, because he's in another wholly different category of substance- something which is 'set apart', because He is Holy.

To try, as Muteki suggests, to leave the loop:
If God has power over human existence and caused it to occur, does that not imply God wants humans to exist? And if God wants humans to exist, can there be any more God-centered behaviour than seeking to build and ensure optimal existence?

I dunno, try asking God, lol. Your thought on this is very human centric, that God needs humans for us to survive well. That's the thought Hegel had, that God is dependent on us, because he needs our worship and our adoration. I would say that God is even beyond that, that he is wholly independent of human worship. God is God, he does as he wants, and does things for himself because of who he is. If he sees fit, we could be gone in a blink of an eye and no moral lines would be crossed. God is Almighty, anything we can come up of, he is already beyond it. Humans are mortal, temporal, and prone to wrongs, and to do wrongs to others. We don't know what moral philosophies should employ, and we sometimes become lost and aimless in our existence.

If I remember correctly, you began this conversation with the notion of whether our species progenitive was compatible with Christianity.

To that, I say no, because to God, he doesn't care about "Our". Placing humans at the center of our endeavors is just another form of idolatry. God doesn't care about the "Our", he cares about the YOU. God's relationship with humanity isn't a general, rule with a scepter on hand, butt on a throne, it's literally a one on one relation, a connection made in redemption. Of course God cares about your life, but he cares for you before you care about your own self.

To stand before God is to be in complete weakness and vulnerability- all before God.

tl;dr

God doesn't care two shits about human legacy, his first test with Abraham was this- circumcision yourself, place Me, before you place your own legacy (the phallic, symbol of power and legacy) ; "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

God don't care that much about civilization, just the relationship between you and him, or him and I, and him and everyone else. Being smart, being wealthy, having power, he big nono.

 

[AntaresVII]

because essence without existence is impossible, as I explained.

And I start by telling you otherwise.

Ah, yes, I forgot, making claims without providing support for them is a legitimate substitute for an argument.
You also told me God doesn't exist, so . . .

"Existence precedes essence" - Sartre, atheistic existential philosopher

Being atheist doesn't make you wrong about the nature of existence in relation to essence. To imply it does is simply an ad hominem.

If you want to discredit an argument, you're going to have to either disprove it, or show that it's based on faulty information.

If you can't argue with the logic, don't pretend to.

Christians believe otherwise of God, because he's in another wholly different category of substance- something which is 'set apart', because He is Holy.

Set apart from what? It can't be reality as I use the term because wherever and whatever God is is necessarily part of reality.
This is the issue that you've consistently ignored.

To try, as Muteki suggests, to leave the loop:
If God has power over human existence and caused it to occur, does that not imply God wants humans to exist? And if God wants humans to exist, can there be any more God-centered behaviour than seeking to build and ensure optimal existence?

I dunno, try asking God, lol

That's a cute way of saying "fuck you"
I asked your take on the matter. If I want subjective internal verification I won't bother asking you for it, because, and this is the important part, I'm not an idiot.
You could just as well say this in any circumstance when someone asks for your input, and it would be equally rude and useless.
"Do you like this color?" "I dunno, ask God".
"Can you help me up?" "try asking God"
"How would you approach the issue" "dunno ask God lol"


In any case, if that's how you're going to try and play, I'm out of the game. I'm stepping off the carousel before your logic completes it circles and hits you in the back of the head.

It's been a ride, but the many more circles and I'll get motion sickness. I started this to ask your opinions on an idea, now you've given your eloquent answer.
I'll take it for what its worth, and leave things as they stand here. Thank you for your insights and arguments.
I hereby declare my query at an end.
—

 

[Black Rose]

I believe God exists.
simple, no word games
I don't want to look like an atheist.

 

[onesteptwostep]

because essence without existence is impossible, as I explained.

And I start by telling you otherwise.

Ah, yes, I forgot, making claims without providing support for them is a legitimate substitute for an argument.
You also told me God doesn't exist, so . . .

"Existence precedes essence" - Sartre, atheistic existential philosopher

Being atheist doesn't make you wrong about the nature of existence in relation to essence. To imply it does is simply an ad hominem.

If you want to discredit an argument, you're going to have to either disprove it, or show that it's based on faulty information.

If you can't argue with the logic, don't pretend to.

Christians believe otherwise of God, because he's in another wholly different category of substance- something which is 'set apart', because He is Holy.

Set apart from what? It can't be reality as I use the term because wherever and whatever God is is necessarily part of reality.
This is the issue that you've consistently ignored.

To try, as Muteki suggests, to leave the loop:
If God has power over human existence and caused it to occur, does that not imply God wants humans to exist? And if God wants humans to exist, can there be any more God-centered behaviour than seeking to build and ensure optimal existence?

I dunno, try asking God, lol

That's a cute way of saying "fuck you"
I asked your take on the matter. If I want subjective internal verification I won't bother asking you for it, because, and this is the important part, I'm not an idiot.
You could just as well say this in any circumstance when someone asks for your input, and it would be equally rude and useless.
"Do you like this color?" "I dunno, ask God".
"Can you help me up?" "try asking God"
"How would you approach the issue" "dunno ask God lol"


In any case, if that's how you're going to try and play, I'm out of the game. I'm stepping off the carousel before your logic completes it circles and hits you in the back of the head.

It's been a ride, but the many more circles and I'll get motion sickness. I started this to ask your opinions on an idea, now you've given your eloquent answer.
I'll take it for what its worth, and leave things as they stand here. Thank you for your insights and arguments.
I hereby declare my query at an end.
—

It would be easier to explain if God's substance had an equal in this world, but obviously, God is something that is wholly independent of anything we know or can think of.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Can you prove what matter is by using matter? Or can you define what love is using science?

Some things are not able to be rationally explained, but just rationally grasped at.

I never said being an atheist was wrong, I'm merely showcasing that atheists start out by framing the world in materialistic terms, of which the center of is the self. Christians, most Christians, though they don't realize it, don't base their understanding of the world on epistemological materialism. We think there is a substance beyond just matter.

God is not a part of reality, he transcends reality, as I have repeatedly tried to explain. If God is a part of reality, then he is a part of reality, a part of creation. That would not be the Christian God but rather something that's part of our lived lives.

You asked a question, so I'm simply answering it by going over the predispositions in your inquiry, and how that does not fit with the Christian worldview. I feel you sought more of a validation rather than an explanation, which is why you're being defensive.

 

[Black Rose]

This is what I think onestep could mean by substances.

God could absorb the bumps used to create us, everything would be flat.

God does not exist because God has no bumps.

 

[onesteptwostep]

God isn't made out of atoms or any substance that is known to man. His substance is wholly independent of anything we know of.

Not sure why I have to repeat this in nearly every post. God is transcendent over all.

 

[Black Rose]

Can you make a diagram? I think good in pictures.

transcendent over all seems very abstract. it seems you need to experience the transcendent before one can understand. I did that several times. The way I describe it is total peace. Very beautiful. I wonder what it is like to be there all the time.

 

[onesteptwostep]

(The world and creation) (God)


There you go.

 

[AntaresVII]

When using "He" or "She" in reference to God, is it an indicator of sex or gender?
Does gender exist where there is no sex?
Does sex exist where there is no biology?
God is (according to you, I don't necessarily agree) beyond physical reality, and thus beyond biology, yes?

So what is meant by "He/She" in reference to God?

 

[onesteptwostep]

When using "He" or "She" in reference to God, is it an indicator of sex or gender?
Does gender exist where there is no sex?
Does sex exist where there is no biology?
God is (according to you, I don't necessarily agree) beyond physical reality, and thus beyond biology, yes?

So what is meant by "He/She" in reference to God?

It's not according to me, it's according to the logic of Christian theology. The entirety of western philosophy is spiked into both Greek philosophy and the Hebrew religion. You don't have to be a Christian to know theology- in fact, there are seminaries in Britain where they give out masters of theology even if you are atheist. You just have to complete the course, which is basically western philosophy plus religious history. Logic isn't exclusive to anyone, it's just a part of creation, like with anything else.

As for the he she thing, I would presume it's because naturally, humans began as patriarchies, so they attributed power to a male pronoun rather than a female one. If there were more female figureheads, I guess it's presumable that that society would manifest itself as matriarchical and would have attributed power or authority to a female pronoun.

I'm not a theology student or anything though, so I wouldn't know if there were such thing as he she pronouns in ancient Hebrew or Latin, Aramaic, and so on. But the former paragraph I wrote above would make sense, I think. Females very rarely held power in the ancient world. Gender or sex wasn't an object of reverence or worship anyways; the God of the Israelites were pretty damming of the Canaanite idols, which most were about deities of fertility, harvest, and war and the like. Fertility would mean worshipping female voluptuousness or the male phallic, harvest would probably be about the sun or something related to the wild and nature, and war would obviously be about strength, aggression, etc.

From what I know, monotheistic religion is almost exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. I think it's a limitation of the English language that we cannot prescribe a pronoun to God without it stripping its personal aspect. If we refer to God as 'it', which is neutral, it would strip God of his personality. But if we ascribe he, or she, we are somewhat extrapolating a relationship that we have between ourselves to God- basically, using a pronoun points to a connection of personality rather than a 'force' or a 'power', aspects which are lower than God.

But I think to really get at the heart of your inquiry, we have to answer what sacredness is. I don't feel like you have a foundation of it, that's why God to you is just as empty as the X in a function of algebra (f(x)). The word God really has no meaning if we don't have the same understanding of it, both in terms of objectivity made through studies in theology, and through the subjective lived experience of religiosity.

 

[Black Rose]

Haruhi Suzumiya - God is a Girl AMV​

 

[onesteptwostep]

AK, you're such a weeb

 

[AntaresVII]

It's not according to me, it's according to the logic of Christian theology.

Well, mostly. Anyway, since you're the one in this discussion who's espousing that theology, the reference "you" just means "your argument/ideas", regardless of where you got them from — it doesn't mean or imply you are the source or sole proponent of the argument/ideas.

As for the he she thing, I would presume it's because naturally, humans began as patriarchies, so they attributed power to a male pronoun rather than a female one. If there were more female figureheads, I guess it's presumable that that society would manifest itself as matriarchical and would have attributed power or authority to a female pronoun.

Ok, but if it's an arbitrary title why wouldn't the theologians of orthodox christianity reject it? It seems too convenient. If you have to specify and define and logically extrapolate every tiny detail about the nature of God, how would you leave out something as fundamental as the application of sex/gender?
You probably know better than I do if there's an official orthodox position on the issue, but I don't think "eh, whatever" is it.

Gender or sex wasn't an object of reverence or worship anyways;

Boy have I got news for you

the God of the Israelites were pretty damming of the Canaanite idols, which most were about deities of fertility, harvest, and war and the like.

1. These people were worshiping fertility, which goes up to what you said there ^^
2. Wasn't the issue the worshiping of false Gods? I don't think it was gender or sex-specific.

From what I know, monotheistic religion is almost exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. I think it's a limitation of the English language that we cannot prescribe a pronoun to God without it stripping its personal aspect. If we refer to God as 'it', which is neutral, it would strip God of his personality.

But what is that personality? If having a gender/sex gives personality, and that differs depending on the gender/sex, it matters a good deal whether God has sex/gender and if so which it is.

But if we ascribe he, or she, we are somewhat extrapolating a relationship that we have between ourselves to God- basically, using a pronoun points to a connection of personality rather than a 'force' or a 'power', aspects which are lower than God.

So it's an arbitrary projection on our part? That would seem to be something to avoid.

But I think to really get at the heart of your inquiry, we have to answer what sacredness is.

. . .
I don't follow.

I don't feel like you have a foundation of it

That's ok, your feelings have no bearing on whether I do or not.

, that's why God to you is just as empty as the X in a function of algebra (f(x)).

That's an assumption on your part based on your feelings, which, as I said, have no bearing on the facts of the matter.

The word God really has no meaning if we don't have the same understanding of it,

Well, no. It has different meanings to each of us if we have different understandings.
Contradictory understanding and interpretations don't nullify each other.
The point here is to discover the source of our differentiation to see if we can reconcile apparent contradictions.

both in terms of objectivity made through studies in theology, and through the subjective lived experience of religiosity.

Theology isn't objective. It assumes a lot of unprovable things, and takes as true the totally unconfirmed writings of what are supposed to be various disparate people living across millennia.

The bias is absurdly obvious: "Everything in this collection of old texts is true"
It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that this is religion not science and there is thus no certainty of fact because the base assumptions are impossible to either prove or disprove.
The work of theology is based on consensus. Based on xyz shared sets of beliefs, what are the logical implications? That's theology.


Anyway, my approach to the whole discussion is essentially that of assuming that my notions of reality are accurate, and rejecting concepts of God that contradict them.

I think most religious people go the other way around, assuming their notions of God are accurate and rejecting concepts of reality that contradict them.

But since neither is fully known, or possibly even knowable, I don't see that either approach is better or worse. I suppose I would say that you should go with assuming whichever side you're more confident you have an understanding of. That's certainly what I'm doing.

And of course we all need to be constantly wary of our assumptions, since we don't even really know if what we think we know is accurate.

 

[AntaresVII]

God is a Girl

At the least you'd be hard pressed to find a guy who doesn't think at least one girl is a God.

Great song btw

 

[onesteptwostep]

. . .
I don't follow.

Yeah, my case in point.

What is sacred to you? What do you hold most important in life? If you can't answer these things, you haven't thought about life in a serious way, nor have you taken responsibilities that entail where your trust in life belongs.

That's ok, your feelings have no bearing on whether I do or not.

I don't think you've quite understood the thread of my intention there. It's not about my "feelings", which I feel apart from you, it's the vibe that you project through your words and the direction of your intent.

Anyway, my approach to the whole discussion is essentially that of assuming that my notions of reality are accurate, and rejecting concepts of God that contradict them.

Your 'notion' has been described by many people in the past, and Christian philosophers and theologians have addressed them. Do you think no one in history have thought about what you have already thought about, and that no one in the Christian realm of things have addressed them? Talk about naivety, and talk about arrogance.

To be blunt, you simply have not grasped the notions that underlie Christianity, nor do you have an understanding of the metaphysical framework which bases Christian thought.

tl;dr You do not know what you not know.

 

[Black Rose]

Sex is random. Chromosomes just happen to create differences on average that lead to procreative differences. This is not always the case and differences lead to opposite-sex or same-sex or trans sex.

The only differences between male and female are chemistry and parts.

gender dysmorphism.

God either has a dysmorphism or doesn't. God is either gender-neutral or is gendered. God's brain is either a cat or a dog. The variation is really too great.

Now we know God has no genitals. It all has to be in personality. What kind of male or female personality is God? The variety is too much.

One thing is that God is seen as the great mother. Because we were born from her. That is our origin. We never came from a penis.

but if only the great mother birthed us why do males exist. Originally a great mother and Greate father existed.

God's gender very much so depends on birth.

 

[AntaresVII]

Sex is random.

To be fair, it could be tied to factors we are yet unaware of. It appears to be random as best we can tell.

God either has a dysmorphism or doesn't. God is either gender-neutral or is gendered.

Now we know God has no genitals.

According to mainstream orthodox christianity, at least.
The framework I'm working off of basic trans-religion beliefs only requires that we not say God must have a body.

It all has to be in personality. What kind of male or female personality is God?

So obviously if God has no body God has no biological sex, which again brings up the question, does gender exist where there is no biological sex?
If gender is a fluid identification with solid, sex-based archetypes, gender shouldn't apply to an entity without sex.
Thus the orthodox christian God would be gender-neutral.

So personality-based gender description of God would basically be our own superimposition of the gender structure over God's behaviour, looking for something we can sort of call gender.

Which takes us here vv

One thing is that God is seen as the great mother. Because we were born from her. That is our origin. We never came from a penis.

But our concept of birth is based in our physical biological reality, that being that birth is the product of both male and female.

Also, the image of the protecting & providing father is one that christianity widely endorses.

but if only the great mother birthed us why do males exist. Originally a great mother and Great father existed.

Gaia and Ouranos
"Originally" — I would suppose they could both still be around. Is there a reason to say only one remains?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Sex is random. Chromosomes just happen to create differences on average that lead to procreative differences. This is not always the case and differences lead to opposite-sex or same-sex or trans sex.

The only differences between male and female are chemistry and parts.

gender dysmorphism.

God either has a dysmorphism or doesn't. God is either gender-neutral or is gendered. God's brain is either a cat or a dog. The variation is really too great.

Now we know God has no genitals. It all has to be in personality. What kind of male or female personality is God? The variety is too much.

One thing is that God is seen as the great mother. Because we were born from her. That is our origin. We never came from a penis.

but if only the great mother birthed us why do males exist. Originally a great mother and Greate father existed.

God's gender very much so depends on birth.

You could well be the next Ron L. Hubbard AK. ;]