In your opinion, who/what is God ?

[tyder001]

God is "Soul" pure being. I think the brain conducts consciouness and so I think "God" is outside the question of soul and spirit. Even to ask "Is there a god?" is a part of God. I've never understood the (to me) silly notion of where did god come from? I am that I am. Time and beginning is a concept of this particular world. I honestly think it's all one eternal moment. I have that feeling when I record a sporting event to watch later. I'll simply fast forward if I"m anxious to know how something comes out. There are times when I'm watching a "live" event when I have that same feeling. As if I could acutally know or fast forward if I only knew how. Silly? I don't know, it's just something I think about from time to time.

 

[Xylo]

I propose another more interesting question...

Q: Does God have a soul?

I already imagine some will write volumes trying to answer this without actually answering with a definitive "yes" or "no." The profundity of the question will be clear only if one doesn't evade the question.

Define "soul" please. The only way to concretely answer the question is to know what the question means.

 

[tyder001]

Honestly, I can't tell you what I am. I can't even point to Natural Selection and say there it is. I can't explain an atom or the first law of Quantom Physics. I can't tell you how a conscious being could possibly arise out of inert matter of any kind. So, yeah it's hard to explain the soul. But, as I said before (imo) No God does not "have" a soul. Soul again, is a concept that we use to try and idenify that thing that we call "me." But, I am a soul, I am a being. I am an animal, I am a living spirit. I am that I am and I always was. When people say "I wasn't alive in 1930" I always think "well what were you then? dead?" So, consiuness is the first cause not an after effect. In my opinion. But, I have been thinking alot lately about the question "What is God?" But, I think that is the wrong question in the wrong order. I need to know "what" I am then the rest will follow. imo.

 

[softbeard]

Does God have a soul?

In a nutshell; no. Assuming we have all our definitions straight, if you define God as omniscient then that's it. No further compartments allowed.

 

[Michael Allen]

Define "soul" please. The only way to concretely answer the question is to know what the question means.

I take this sense:

"A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity."

The other one may be contradictory (at best meaningless) if applied to God:

"The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal"

Humans are said to have "souls" -- one might think of them as completely unique and individuated "software." At this point you might substitute "essence." So in a way the two above "senses" of the term are combined.

 

[Ezechiel]

A god could be conscious entity responsible for our existence. If there is such an entity, are we a mere experiment in which we must escape this space/time bubble before it collapses to find the answer ?

Anything inside this universe is part of an evolutionary process and a god, should there be one, would be outside observing us. Logically, this creator should also have a creator....etc... This endless recursive design could be an expression of organized chaos that you can appreciate in fractals.

LOL (Susskind on multiverses is a good start

 

[boomerang]

One aspect of the search for a uniquely monotheistic God has always troubled my teeny mind. Western man has traditionally sought proof for the monotheistic God in the form of displays of power imposed upon humans, i.e. miracles and punishments in the physical world.

My question is this: How could one ever distinguish between any set of external perceptions, no matter how awe inspiring, as personally directed by a universal God (big G) vs superior beings with their own place in a larger hierarchy? One may believe, or somehow be made to believe, such displays are evidence of a monotheistic God. But belief and validity are not synonymous. I used to debate this topic with a traditional monotheist who asserted that when the sky finally cracked and the stars fell then proof of God would be obvious. My reply was something like "as caused by exactly whom or what?"

The gods (little g) of the ancients and the God of Spinoza I find to be relatively comforting. Polytheistic gods at least have their own bosses to whom they answer and the God of Spinoza is not malicious.

 

[Michael Allen]

Does the universal computer of the cosmos possess software?

 

[trainedobserver]

Does the universal computer of the cosmos possess software?

If such a thing exists, it seems that it would be essentially hard-wired rather than software based, which explains why it would have to be so damn big. I think it would be like our brains, which are dynamic physical networks and not universal machines executing code. You cannot for example, download one personality from one brain to another because the executable is contained in the physical structure of the brain itself. Just a thought.

 

[Roro]

I wouldn't believe in God if I could answer your question.
In my opinion God is unknowable.
I could list attributes of God, I could state things that I think are true about God, but I have no idea who/what God is.

 

[Randall]

I wouldn't believe in God if I could answer your question.
In my opinion God is unknowable.
I could list attributes of God, I could state things that I think are true about God, but I have no idea who/what God is.

It's not that hard to get a grip on the God concept. Just take it one step at a time. First it's a religious designation ( a title ), and in monotheism it is the top deity in the religion's heirarchy. This is analagous to the title of King or Emperor, and sometimes God is even referred to as "King" or "Shepherd" and depicted as wearing a crown or holding a staff. Note that even in monotheism there can be lesser deities such as angels and prophets and saints.

So the question then becomes one of whether or not you subscribe personally to the deification of some entity, whether it be supernatural or otherwise. If you feel that kneeling to demonstrate your worship and subservience to some deified entity is your thing, then you've just voted that entity in as your "God". Whether or not the said entity actually exists is another issue altogether. So in a very real sense, there can be no God without a religious congregation to believe in it. Without the congregation, the entity ( if it exists ) becomes just another being that may or may not be any better than anyone else in the universe. Perhaps it might be more powerful, but power does not equate to morality. We have heard the stories about the jealous vengeful powerful God of bilical lore who killed a whole generation of first born, including innocent children and took sides in ancient tribal warfare.

In some religions there are real material "living Gods" that we can see and weigh and measure and they are in every sense as real as you or I. Therefore those gods exist for the people who have deified them. As for the more abstract God ... the "universe creator", there is also plenty we can deduce about it ( if such an entity exists at all ). For more on that you might want to check out some Christopher Hitchens.

j.r.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

If I presume the standard definition of God as the Supreme being with all the attributes and benefits associated with that then God is an impossibility. God is something that exceeds the subset of knowledge available to human beings. God belongs to the superset and therefore is incomprehensible to the subset.

This is why it makes sense to me that if God exists, if he is the Creator, and if he cares about his creation and wants it to know him, he would have to leave clues in his creation that point back to himself, while putting the capacity for rationality into his creatures so they would be able to pick up on those clues and grow in understanding of their Creator. In the ultimate move of self-revelation, God would need to humble himself and actually enter into his creation, drawing his creation to himself in an incomprehensible intimacy.

For what it's worth.

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

Just another quick thought, concerning how we lowly creatures in the subset could ever even hope to know anything about a being in the superset that is compeletely transcendent. I think it was Aquinas who argued that God is in fact intelligible, but inexhaustibly so. So he said that Heaven will basically be something like spending eternity as students in a classroom contemplating the face of God, continually growing in knowledge and understanding of God. And as students here on Earth can relish the excitement and wonder of learning new things and attaining deeper levels of understanding, Heaven will be characterized by a similar sort of joy in learning.

 

[trainedobserver]

This is why it makes sense to me that if God exists, if he is the Creator, and if he cares about his creation and wants it to know him, he would have to leave clues in his creation that point back to himself, while putting the capacity for rationality into his creatures so they would be able to pick up on those clues and grow in understanding of their Creator. In the ultimate move of self-revelation, God would need to humble himself and actually enter into his creation, drawing his creation to himself in an incomprehensible intimacy.

Which is the Christian myth of Jesus incarnation. There is no more reason to buy into that than any other human generated concept of what lies in the superset.

]

Just another quick thought, concerning how we lowly creatures in the subset could ever even hope to know anything about a being in the superset that is compeletely transcendent. I think it was Aquinas who argued that God is in fact intelligible,...

Those are assumptions based on wishful thinking. It is also an arrogant and narcissistic view that sees human beings as of central importance to an all powerful invisible parental figure.

 

[Ezechiel]

Those are assumptions based on wishful thinking. It is also an arrogant and narcissistic view that sees human beings as of central importance to an all powerful invisible parental figure.

+ 1 on that one.

IMHO, the main reason why the ET subject is so destabilizing to christians. An intelligent galactic community is a fatal blow to any centrist human generated concept.

One day we'll get out of that locker LOL

 

[tyder001]

IMHO, the main reason why the ET subject is so destabilizing to christians. An intelligent galactic community is a fatal blow to any centrist human generated concept.


IMHO, the materilistic Dawainin myth might be the one destabilized if we were to find an interdimensional reality out there.

 

[softbeard]

IMHO, the materilistic Dawainin myth might be the one destabilized if we were to find an interdimensional reality out there.

Why? Why would Darwin's theory of evolution be destabilized by an 'interdimensional reality'? I know physics and cosmology would be destabilized, but why evolution? How does the existence of an 'interdimensional reality' preclude evolution taking place? I don't see the logic.

 

[tyder001]

I was afraid I didn't make myself clear. :frown: I didn't mean to imply that evolution wasn't true. I was talking about the reductionist, it's all a chemical reaction folks. Not evolution as it takes place. But, evolution as a dogmatic philosopy disguised as science.

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

I have said many times that I believe that evoluction is both a physical and spritual fact of our experience and growth here. I may be a little odd to some but it's what I believe. Right now. 8)

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------

To complete my ramble. I have been on the earth now for 54 years. In that time I have been a evangelical Christian, a seeker of Buddist meditation, an agnostic, a New Ager, Back to a liberal Christian and at this time a Christian Agnostic. :redface: I have had visions and dreams and moments of just knowing. I have looked into the heavens and felt God and looked into the heavens and felt how small and insignificant I and all the earth is. I've had a very good liberal arts education and in the 6th grade I was reading on the college entrance level. I can honestly say that there are holes in evolution and some of the time period doens't work. I can honestly say that I belive those holes will be accounted for scientifically if we keep looking but they will not be proven to be the result of blind chance. I don't believe in something from nothing. I don't beleive in a concsiuness arising from dead matter and chemicals or even chemicals and electricity. Sometime here it's as if I and anybody else who dares to stray from the orthadoxy of worshiping Dawain is branded as a kook. The anger is amazing. I don't mind if some folks here are atheist. I feel the same way my old Social Work Prof used to feel about Doctor Laura. She said "That's Doctor Lauras opinion, and she's welcome to it." Eye roll here. Doctor Laura by the way is a very well known conservative radio host for those of you who are really, really young or not American. That's how I feel about athiesm. It's a way of looking at the world and they are "welcome to it." But, I don't buy it. Of course I don't buy religious fundies either.

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

Finally, while I was always a great reader..I was and am a terrible speller.

 

[softbeard]

I was afraid I didn't make myself clear. :frown: I didn't mean to imply that evolution wasn't true. I was talking about the reductionist, it's all a chemical reaction folks. Not evolution as it takes place. But, evolution as a dogmatic philosopy disguised as science.

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

I have said many times that I believe that evoluction is both a physical and spritual fact of our experience and growth here. I may be a little odd to some but it's what I believe. Right now. 8)

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------

To complete my ramble. I have been on the earth now for 54 years. In that time I have been a evangelical Christian, a seeker of Buddist meditation, an agnostic, a New Ager, Back to a liberal Christian and at this time a Christian Agnostic. :redface: I have had visions and dreams and moments of just knowing. I have looked into the heavens and felt God and looked into the heavens and felt how small and insignificant I and all the earth is. I've had a very good liberal arts education and in the 6th grade I was reading on the college entrance level. I can honestly say that there are holes in evolution and some of the time period doens't work. I can honestly say that I belive those holes will be accounted for scientifically if we keep looking but they will not be proven to be the result of blind chance. I don't believe in something from nothing. I don't beleive in a concsiuness arising from dead matter and chemicals or even chemicals and electricity. Sometime here it's as if I and anybody else who dares to stray from the orthadoxy of worshiping Dawain is branded as a kook. The anger is amazing. I don't mind if some folks here are atheist. I feel the same way my old Social Work Prof used to feel about Doctor Laura. She said "That's Doctor Lauras opinion, and she's welcome to it." Eye roll here. Doctor Laura by the way is a very well known conservative radio host for those of you who are really, really young or not American. That's how I feel about athiesm. It's a way of looking at the world and they are "welcome to it." But, I don't buy it. Of course I don't buy religious fundies either.

Reading your 'ramble' made me think of you having been splattered with a cross-section of just about every theological/philosophical/scientific/cosmological falacy and mis-conconception out there. Don't get the wrong idea; I'm not trying to trivialize your beliefs. I think it's great that you keep questioning the dogma thrown at you. Suggestion for success; don't ever stop questioning the dogma. From your posts, I gather questioning things is what has kept you on an even keel thus far.
As usual, many of the problems in these type of discussions are miscommunications and misuse of definitions. Darwin never tried to say that his theory was there to explain everything. Yet, he gets tarred by that brush.
Just as there are fundamentalist religious nuts out there, there are also fundamentalist 'scientific' nuts out there. The problem is not with science or religion, but in some peoples' belief in absolutes. These types of thinkers start out with a belief in an absolute; wether in a God or a deterministic universe. And they don't bother to question themselves or their associate's beliefs. In a nutshell; it's a 'cult'.

 

[tyder001]

From your posts, I gather questioning things is what has kept you on an even keel thus far.

Absolutely. Matter of fact I started questioning by praying and meditating. It's kind of ironic but the fundlemental tools religion gave me is one of the strengths I found to relieve me of religious zealotry. Doesn't work that way for everyone but it works for me. Thanks for respecting my journey.

 

[Slim Shady]

My God is Bacon