Is there a God -- An essay by John Shirley

[Agnosticsherbet]

Is there a God -- An essay by John Shirley
Does God exist?

When we ask this question, perhaps we should first define our terms. What do we mean by God? What ontological framework is involved in our idea of God's existence? A gigantic super-anthropomorphic entity, the creator of the universe -- is that what must exist, for God to exist? Must it be a Someone who is In Charge and who, as the Bible said, has numbered every hair on your head, and knows when every sparrow falls? (And what did the Bible's writers really mean by that?)

If ever there was a question for which the answer is more questions, it was that one.

But let's not be coy about so important a question. (It is, at least, important to many of us). To simply state, "Whether God exists is all a matter of definition" is just another cop-out; just another sophistry.

I don't kid myself that I can speak with genuine authority here. I can only offer opinions which I hope are thought through. And we'll come to those...

This fascinating essay by Science Fiction Writer, John Shirley, made this old Agnostic think.
It is worth reading.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Yes, I do believe there is a God

Not one that gives a shit about his creation, but a God nevertheless.

And he's an absentee landlord anyway.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. I like the way Stephen King described God.

God created the universe, and watches it like a movie, sitting up in the balcony with popcorn and a soda, gods feet kicked up on the bannister, but never interfering.

I'm agnostic, but I like the thought experiment and intend to give it a try over the next year.

[Xipe Totec]

3. A friend of mine once said, more decades ago than I care to admit,

God is a great big purple dick in the sky.

And once in a while it's your turn.

Ironically, my friend's name was Rod. As in Roderick.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. That is an apt description..

[Cartoonist]

5. Why purple?

Forgive my naivete.

[Xipe Totec]

6. I'm glad you asked that

There is a very strong correlation between the subject of royalty and the color purple in the scriptures. The word, royal, means that which belongs or pertains to a king. The children of a king are said to be his royal seed. The clothing of a king are his royal apparel. The cities of the king are referred to as royal cities. Thus, all the possessions of a king are royal possessions.

Purple is a mixture of blue and red. Blue is associated with law or commandment and red is associated with war, blood, and judgment. Our King, Jesus Christ, kept the law (blue) to a jot and a tittle and then conquered sin, Satan, death, hell, and the grave through shedding his blood upon the cross of Calvary and satisfying the judgment of God upon the imputed sins of his elect people. The inscription above the head of Jesus on the cross read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." He was and is indeed the King of the Kingdom of heaven.

The color, purple, is found in many things pertaining to the tabernacle and temple. Often it is used in combination with other colors such as blue, red, gold, and white. The following items in the tabernacle and the clothing of the high priest contain such combinations including purple: curtain of the tabernacle, veil of the tabernacle, hanging for the door of the tent, hanging for the gate of the court, the ephod of the high priest, the curious girdle of the high priest, the breastplate of the high priest, the hem of the priests robe. The color, purple is also the color of the covering of the brazen altar. The combination colors will be dealt with in another section of this study on colors.


http://dentonpbc.org/color_purple.htm

[Cartoonist]

7. I'm sorry I asked.

Geez. That was practically a sermon.

[Xipe Totec]

8. Next time, I'll just post a "Let me google that for you" link. nt

[MrChuck]

9. Lolled. Eom

[Promethean]

11. Oh come on.

Thats not even close to a sermon. Its just an extremely verbose way of saying that purple historically represents royalty and power.

[Iggo]

19. Pretty much the same thing as no god.

[pokerfan]

20. The invisible and the non-existent often look very much alike. (nt)

[Iggo]

21. I was thinking more like...

...the doesn't participate 'cause it doesn't care and the doesn't participate 'cause it doesn't exist look very much alike.

[Xipe Totec]

24. ...

https://www.facebook.com/berkeleybreathed/photos/a.114529165244512.10815.108793262484769/1122593967771355/?type=3&theater

[Xipe Totec]

22. Your perception is overwhelming.

[Iggo]

27. You're probably just smelling my farts.

Those are also overwhelming.

[Jim__]

10. Here's a link to the essay:

http://www.darkecho.com/JohnShirley/god.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

14. Thanks, I forgot to add the link.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Ah here is part of that babble that one need not worry about:

In his notes, Ferris mentions the strange conceptions offered in the book The Physics Of Immortality by Tulane University physicist Frank Tipler, who compared the universe to a vast computer and suggested that if the universe is a closed system destined to recollapse,

Never mind about that, the universe is destined not for collapse but for eternal expansion into a dark cold isolation. The cyclic collapse and rebirth via a big bang was a more comforting cosmology, unfortunately not one that is sustained by the facts.

[mr blur]

13. Or, to put it another way:

THE OFFICIAL GOD FAQ

[hrmjustin]

15. I believe in God but I don't think the divine decides what goes on here on Earth.

[TygrBright]

16. Thank you for posting this!

It's a little dense, but these paragraphs near the end as nearly articulate my own experience of the Divine as any words I've ever read:

>>

What is the nature of divinity, directly experienced? By all reports, there is affirmation of the Oneness of things; there is a sense of a Self that transcends personality; there is an appreciation of that higher Self's forever taking part in every conscious thing, as if the universe were eternally exploring itself, playing symbolic games with itself through us; there is a perception of a benevolent, intermediary intelligence, which is both our own underlying consciousness and something outside us at once, a nurturing mind that reaches out to us, but is too often prevented from reaching us -- prevented by us, by ourselves. We are in the way of ourselves.

And there is a recognition that it is not necessary for this "God" to have "created" the universe in any humanly comprehendable sense; it is not necessary for this God to have ordained that your Mother died when you were twelve, or that you have chronic arthritis, or that you are prone to drug addiction, or that the Holocaust must take place. It is not necessary for this God to have ordained the course of history, as Will and Ariel Durant expected, to have guided it as human beings think of a "God" that "guides" in the anthropomorphic sense. It is not necessary for this God to be all-powerful and thus all-responsible, at least not as human beings imagine all- powerful intelligence to be.

<<

Nothing so subjective and personal should ever be translated into dogma and require orthodoxy of belief or compliance of action.

Not ever. Article VI, clause 3 of the US Constitution is perhaps the greatest contribution the Framers made to the evolution of human social theory and practice.

appreciatively,
Bright

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. The article really made me think.

[TygrBright]

18. I was stumbling toward some articulation of this...

...attempting to explain it to a friend, who finally cut through the poorly-processed verbiage with the exasperated question, "Well, what do YOU believe God wants?"

And out popped this: "If 'want' is involved, it isn't God."

And that was as far as I could get.

Got me an eye-roll and thrown-up hands and we talked about bowling instead.

I know even less about bowling but my ignorance there is apparently less irritating.

amusedly,
Bright

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Yeah, fascinating. Like a train wreck.

It's amazing to me to hear people twice my age regurgitating the same New Age quasi-religious angostobabble I grew out of when I hit my mid-twenties.

Like this:

I have come to believe that there really are "supernatural" phenomena genuinely associated with spiritual seeking: some gurus really can transmit shakti energy, waves of "good feeling" that wash over followers; diligent seekers may well one day discover they themselves have become telepathic, to some degree. There may be other manifestations. Wise teachers invariably counsel against dwelling on these phenomena, or even encouraging them. Corrupt gurus abound; cult leaders like the late "Osho" achieve some "powers" and a limited level of spiritual insight, and use these minor-league achievements to enslave the foolish and to feed their own rapacious egos; such teachers become frozen on the path, and then begin a tumble very like the legendary fall of Lucifer.

Phenomena like shakti transmission and yogic telepathy are presumed to be the by-products of unknown physical laws. They, in themselves, do not constitute proof that there is a God. They only prove that there is a phenomenon which you have been told is associated with God. It could be a purely physical a phenomenon -- but then, so could God.

"Shakti energy"? "Good waves"? Fucking telepathy? Christ, what a clusterfuck of woo.

To which he adds:

Spiritual seekers who've passed out of the "spiritual supermarket", who've put New Age superficialities and the toys of quasi-meditation behind them, eventually find, more or less, the same serious, corresponding method in whatever tradition they work within..

"Yeah, I believe in shakti transmission and happy waves, but I'll never read anything by that Deepak Chopra guy. He's NUTS!"



Hooray for critical self-reflection.


But that's neither here nor there. Shirley's observations aren't novel or unique. Like thousands before him, he simply defines God so that it is consistent with a universe that appears to operate without the direction of the divine, and justifies his belief with the old "personal experience" canard. Big deal.

[cleanhippie]

25. But it's quite entertaining to read the responses raining praise and adoration on the author

For being so 'deep' and 'intellectual'.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. You don't have to be right to win praise around here...

...you just have to be agreeable.

[rug]

28. I just love your smiley!

It's edgy!