The 'god is a person' principle? ...And that there is a personality behind all things?

[Amorphos]

God is a person principle;

notions posited by other posters [in green]
Atheistic philosophers cannot deny there is always a personality behind the scenes.

I have been debating about the absolute and got this at another forum ^^. First I’ll give my argument against the absolute, as this defines the ‘space of god’ as like the universe is in a philosophical and objective space. So we then have to reconsider ‘god the person’ accordingly, can such a thing exist [in the non material sense].

Aside from this can we see personality behind everything? I can imagine that there is intelligence or what appears to be, such is the complexity and order in the world, but does that intellect have a personality?

1 - Per your reckoning, is there anything that can be classified as wholely "Absolute"?
2 - Is the word or concept of "Absolute" absolute?
3 - Is the opinion that "there is NO Absolute", an absolute truth, or is it a Relative truth?

1. I don’t think so, no. I can understand the void or oneness/infinity as being only itself, which would appear to be absolute, however that things are manifest from there even the whole of creation [possibly], this means it has no hard edges -so to say, hence is not absolute. Think of it as like a train station, it is itself ‘absolutely’ a train station, but its function is of passengers and trains passing through all the time. In fact it is not even a train station unless it has that functionality, hence you can have something that is whole within itself yet contrarily is partially in constant flux.

such is the poetic reality. [that reality is literally poetic]

2. My fundamental basis is that nothing is absolute, no meaning nor thing. If it were it would imply a dualism that I don’t think can be that fundamental.

3. Semantics. For there to be no absolute, you have to qualify the meaning of absolute which we cannot, thus there is no absolute and no ‘not absolute’ ~ for something to be not a something we have to first declare what something is.
　

[cenkiss]

As i believe that there is no god.I say that god does not have personality because it does not exist.

[Amorphos]

Maybe, but is there personality behind things, I would say there seams to be an intellect, not sure if that means the intelligence has a personality like we do.

[cenkiss]

I don't think there is any kind of personality.Universe is so vast.It is very different in different parts.And we know next to nothing about it yet.

[Elfdude]

One would be in error to conclude there's a personality to the universe simply because it seems to act a certain way. Our perception is inherently flawed in that we like to personify even the most of inanimate, natural, and imminent situations.

The greater your set of data the more likely you are to find correlations and the more inaccurate correlations become.

[Amorphos]

I know we tend to anthropomorphise things, but intelligence doesn’t have to be human, and it would take an immense intellect to devise the universe. I suppose we have to measure that against it being accidental, the problem with though is that the universe wasn’t an accident ~ its purely causal.

[Elfdude]

I know we tend to anthropomorphise things, but intelligence doesn’t have to be human, and it would take an immense intellect to devise the universe. I suppose we have to measure that against it being accidental, the problem with though is that the universe wasn’t an accident ~ its purely causal.

One of the problems I've always had in responding to you is that you don't actually seem to state much of substance in a lot of your posts. I'm not sure where the second sentence in your statement comes from at all or what it is relevant to or what you're actually trying to say.

Arch summed up personify vs humanize pretty well.

[gambit]

I know we tend to anthropomorphise things, but intelligence doesn’t have to be human, and it would take an immense intellect to devise the universe. I suppose we have to measure that against it being accidental, the problem with though is that the universe wasn’t an accident ~ its purely causal.

That's the point. Humans understand intelligence doesn't have to be human, but since we are the only basis we have for genuine intelligence, we project human qualities into anything that has some intelligent processes. It's possible some forces at work are simply good at what they do.

DNA, for instance. It's the sole reason we are who we are, it's how we pass on our instinctual knowledge, our genetics. more than that - its the "how to live" manual for our bodies, without them your brain wouldn't know how to function, your flesh wouldn't grow, your hormones wouldn't work, etc. It's our blueprint, and we don't stand a molecule of a chance without it.

And yet, it is completely devoid of personality, or will, instead being more of a natural computer.

[Nutsack]

Sure, God has no personality. We might just as well call him Big Bang and say that he is the universe itself, this is ing stupid. The question is when will people stop coming up with retarded excuses to justify Gods existence?

[Arch-hereticK]

He said personify, not humanise. Gigantic difference

[Exarch]

apparently, God is jewish, has a white beard and an obsession with the sex lives and foreskins of his worshippers. also enjoys mass rape and genocide, or seeing it conducted in His name.