I badly need help with writing a paper on the nature of God as described by philosophers throughout history?

Question

Okay, so I have quite a task before me. I need to write a research paper, at least 15 pages in length, describing the nature of God, in particular whether or not he is more human-like or more impersonal. My information must largely reflect the thoughts of several philosophers throughout history on this topic (i.e. What do different philosophers from different time periods think about God, is he a "man"?).

Only have less than two months to do this thing, and while I'm tearing through some books my advisor recommended:

Plato:

Euthyphro

Republic (Book II)

St. Augustine:

City of God

Confessions

St. Thomas Aquinas:

selections from Summa Theologica

Kierkegaard:

Fear and Trembling

Karl Barth:

The Humanity of God

I am not seeing how I will be able to pull together a good 15 pg. paper from these sources. Are any of these recommended sources superfluous? Can someone recommend better sources for me? ANY other kind of help or recommendations? I'm becoming desperate.

Answer 1

The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A Kempis. There are many interpretations, but I recommend the one by William C. Creasy.  I also recommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

Neither Kempis nor Lewis were "philosophers" per se, but they both make compelling arguments about the nature of God. They hold a place among the great classics of Christian literature and are highly respected by Christians and non-Christians alike. Hang in there. You will get your paper done and it will be awesome. I admire you for taking on such a challenging subject. I'd be interested in reading it if you decide to make it available on the internet or through this forum.

Good luck!

Answer 2

I wish you all the luck in the world in completing your 15 page paper. While concidering Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Homer wisdoms which is 2,000 years old from a polytheistic culture while comparing in line with today's modern science and technology which is far greater than man or women could have envisage back in those far off times of past tends to outdate monothiest relgions or any religion to be just mythical.

Those religious philosophers who have came and gone in-between have also left their footprints on this earth of theorising of a super power invested in one God thus educating our minds of today as being fact.

Invisible as God is to the naked eye, for touch we cannot feel God's presents on our naked skin, nor can we hear such messages out-loud and only can be heard within the human mind through cosmic dreams that no one else can witness, leads the belief that is any God real or is it just imagination contained in beliefs handed down from one generation to another.

Other sources of religion stem from our stone age past and still linger among those tribes living on the fringes of modern times in the isolated jungles and deserts sands where explorers tend to find now and again who have never ever heard of God's son Jesus Christ.

These isolated tribes locked into the time warp of purification untouched by the rest of the so called civilised world are testamentary to the fact that the God we consider to be most powerful on this universe has never bothered to introduce the Godly presences to them.

Alas they of human nature full of the unknown sort to fulfil their curiosity with mystery Gods of the forest and desert for their own survival and have invented their own mythical gods in contrast to what the civilised world has established as being fact.

Note the picture where the wave has been suspended in time while the little Australian Aboriginal wonders what powerful God could do such a thing.

Answer 3

Plato's Euthyphro is a fascinating dialog. Of course, since the characters in it belong within a polytheistic culture, they would speak about the nature of "the gods" in the plural.

But that's an easy enough mental adjustment to make while reading it. What is trickier is identifying the precise question at stake : Is something moral because it is what the gods command? or do they command it because it is moral?

If burying the dead in a proper ceremony is moral only because the gods command it, then are they (is He) a completely arbitrary Being, who could just as easily command one sort of act as another? Who could just as easily tell us "thou shalt kill" as "thou shalt not kill"?

I should think you could chew on that for at least three pages, and your essay would be one-fifth written!

Then move on to Plato's Republic, chapter 2. The relevant passages come near the end of that chapter, where Plato has Socrates explaining how the future guardians of the state should be educated. A proper education must not involve teaching children about the gods as Homer depicts them. (Later in the book, Plato suggests exiling poets from the Republic altogether). The Homeric gods are powerful but degenerate humans. Teaching them to children plants in children's minds the idea that it is good to get away with whatever you can in pursuit of your own pleasures.

There's some obvious synergy between these two Platonic texts and what they say about the nature of the gods Plato and his contemporaries had heard of. That'll get you started.

The number of pages seems pretty small given all you'll want to consider!

Answer 4

15 pages is not that daunting (just start writing). Even though it is a typical way to categorize God--more human-like or more impersonal--that categorization, the way I see it, is insufficient because God is both impersonal (the unknown), and very personal--the living God is You. In the following I give you three names along with some of my own interpretation: Alfred North Whitehead (sorry, it just too long, I hope one name is enough):

"If you say so, "Noel replied," but what about God? How did

Whitehead perceive God, anyway?"

"Same o, same o," replied Tony, "as a redeeming father figure."

"That's not true," said Stan, "Well, maybe its a little true, but

it's more complicated than that. Whitehead would be the first to

admit that if religion didn't exist, it would have to be invented.

From a sociological point of view, it does too many things for too

many people for it not to exist. Religion is necessary for another

reason, though. It deals with permanence amid change, and for

Whitehead that meant connecting the idea of permanence up with the

idea of `extensive connection', or the general ordering that takes

place in process reality. In other words, God is co-continuous with

all the `happenings' of the world."

Go tell that to Dostoyevsky," replied Tony, "As far as he was

concerned God was a mass murderer of innocent children."

"Okay, Tony, for the sake of Dostoyevsky, lets hold God accountable

for all the world's sins," responded Stan, "but first lets look to

see on whose behalf God exists.

The

untimely deaths of innocents are part of that process, part of the

internal constitution of God as God works through the transition

from the eternal to the actual, and from the actual back to the

eternal. God is the reason for all becoming, and nothing exists that

is separate from God. All `passing' is absorbed back into the

eternal witness of God."

"That's not good enough," Tony replied, "whose pain or whose

suffering, is not the issue. The fact that there is way too much

pain and suffering is the issue. With all the pain, cruelty, and

injustice in the world, we just can't let God off the hook, even if,

as Whitehead believes, God shares in all of it. Believe me, He would

be convicted by a jury of his peers."

"Tony's right," Noel replied, "God has to go."

"I'm not finished yet," Stan responded, "there's more than just

witnessing what's going on here. In fact, there's a dynamic that

shouts out for change. If indeed a retributive justice is called for

here, then one has to look no farther then the first mirror to

pinpoint the guilty."

"Hold on! Who's getting huffy now," replied Tony, "I didn't start

this. I didn't ask to be born. I'm just here, doing what I can to

stay alive. How the h**l can I be held responsible for God's

handiwork?"

"Do you feel sad when you see dying children," said Stan.

"What's that supposed to mean; of course I feel sad," shot back

Tony, "but I can't change it. I block it out of my mind."

"Well that's what brands you as guilty," Stan replied. "It's the

playing out of those self-expressive, self-fulfilling feelings that

you can't avoid that gets you into trouble. Insofar as occasions

conform to their environment, insofar as the `self-aim' conforms to

its immediate past, there is determinism, but insofar as any entity

modifies its response through the subjective element of feeling,

there is freedom. Feeling and freedom are codependent for Whitehead,

and God is in touch with all feelings. He is there, inside agonizing

screams, and He is there in suffering, especially suffering caused

by injustice. He is also there, however, in all hopes, joys, and

happiness, in addition to fears, regrets, and sorrows. Good feelings

move the world forward to a better place. It is feeling that gives

subjective aim to occasions. We encounter, in good feelings,

the `allure of realization.' It is possible to create a more humane,

peaceful, and loving world. Whitehead said as much, and Gandhi told

us how to proceed, `You must be the change you want to see in the

world'—both in life and love."

Answer 5

As for research paper writing help I can advise you a professional custom writing company. Their highly qualified academic writers helped me a lot with my research papers last year. Check it out: http://www.customwritingservice.com/main...

Answer 6

God reveals Himself in two ways: Through the scriptures, and through His creation.

It doesn't matter what some one had thought or written about it.

One could write several books about God, with no validity whatsoever. One might even conclude that there is no God; many have.

A fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Some have not even made that much of a beginning.

Man's mind can generate what might be called wisdom but it ain't.  Is Plato wiser than the Almighty God?

Answer 7

wikipedia is a wonderful thing

Answer 8

Dr. David R. Hawkins is not a philosopher, more so a spiritual teacher and healer who "is" the nature of God.  You may find his explanations unlike any other you have heard.  Maybe it may help you out .  

Last night I began reading chapter ten of his book title "I; Reality and Subjectivity."  The chapter is titled the Nature of God, and includes what we can say is true about God.  If you have a Barnes & Nobles or a Boarders near you, go check out chapter ten.

Also this is a site with pod cast that he used to do a monthly bases that I have found helpful for spirituality in general.

http://beyondtheordinary.net/drhawkins.s...

Hope this helps

Answer 9

Well, judging from the list of sources you provided, your paper actually IS calling for you to come to some kind of conclusion.  At least to a degree.  And the reason I say that is because many of those philsophers had completely different and inconsisent ideas about the nature of the Divine.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't refer to all of them.  In fact, if you are looking for more things to fill out your paper that would be one good way.  Aristotle envisoned the ultimate power as literally that - a thing which must be the most reasonable and ordered entity conceivable.  Kierkegaard saw it an unknowable in incomprehensible; something that cannot be defined by even the bounds of reason.  Whichever view you agree with, you can include a section in your paper on how that other one would disagree with you and why.

As such, many of your sources seem to be pretty critical stepping stones in the history of theological speculation.  Aristotle and Plato, who had rather different views, from different directions of early ideas.  Aquinas' Summa Theologica (which tried to include and integrate many of the earlier views) is a major foundation of Christian thought.  And Kierkegaard is one of the best post-modern sources for this subject.  You may wish to look for other views that address other completely different directions in paganism or deism, for example.

Again, if you are having trouble filling out fifteen pages if you just include enough of what any particular philosopher thought and why.  Many of them wrote whole books on the subject, after all!

Answer 10

so- be brave- do not waste your time.  go to library-search the books listed above-prepare notes-consult wikipedia-and encyclopedia preoare the pages. if you do not -do who will do it.