Does God believe in himself?

  • Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date
  • #1
1,648
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

If indeed God would exist, would he believe in himself?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
199
0
i see no reason god wouldent because like in the movie dogma if god's word is infaulable then if god dosent beilve in god, god cant exist.....what
 
  • #3
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
If indeed God would exist, would he believe in himself?
Would he need to? I think the only reason to bring the word "believe" into play is to suggest possible doubts? And I don't think it's possible for God -- who is "all-knowing" -- to doubt Himself. For if He did, that suggests the possibility that the Universe might just "wink out." :wink:
 
  • #4
477
4
Originally posted by heusdens
If indeed God would exist, would he believe in himself?
your question has several faults. first, and most obvious, you must clearly define what it means to "believe in one's self". do you mean he would accept the christian doctrines? or that he would believe in his own existance? how could he not! it is self evidence. (see the thread "I think, therefore, i am"). secondly, as iacchus said, if he were a being of infinite knowledge and knew everything that could be known, how could he not know if he existed?
 
  • #5
CubeX
Look at your hand. Do you believe in it? Or is it part of another world. There's a Matrix....

Heheh, j/k!

But honestly, do you believe that you truely exist? How could you wonder if you existed if you didn't exist? Oh the madness!

-CubeX
 
  • #6
55
9
Simple answer to this is, do you beleive in yourself?
As cubeX pointed out.
 
  • #7
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
If indeed God would exist, would he believe in himself?
So what's your point?
 
  • #8
1,648
0
The question is to argue weather a being can be consciouss itself, without there being something to be consciouss of.
 
  • #9
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
The question is to argue weather a being can be consciouss itself, without there being something to be consciouss of.
That's a very good question. :wink:

Of course if there was another "meta" dimension which we just called thought, then maybe it would be possible? And then again I would have to say yes, if in fact there were a Big Bang and a Creator who was responsible for it.

While I also think it's possible to be "sensory deprived," and still be conscious of "one's thoughts" (suggesting our thoughts are another dimension).

So, is it possible that a "spiritual" (non-physical) world existed before the Big Bang?
 
  • #10
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
That's a very good question. :wink:

Of course if there was another "meta" dimension which we just called thought, then maybe it would be possible? And then again I would have to say yes, if in fact there were a Big Bang and a Creator who was responsible for it.

While I also think it's possible to be "sensory deprived," and still be conscious of "one's thoughts" (suggesting our thoughts are another dimension).

So, is it possible that a "spiritual" (non-physical) world existed before the Big Bang?
God is as most people express it eternally, while on the other hand it is said that the material world is not eternal (and a creation of the subjective God).
So there must have been an eternity in which there was just God as a form of consciousness or spirit, without there being a world.
So, God didn't have a reflection on anything outside it.

We state however here that a consciouss being can not have existence without there being an objective reality outside, apart and independend of it, which in a way defines subjectivity.

There can only be subjectiveness when there is something different from subjectiveness, thus in a the form of an objective material world.
 
  • #11
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
God is as most people express it eternally, while on the other hand it is said that the material world is not eternal (and a creation of the subjective God).
Who said God was subjective? Of course it's a "subjective idea" in many people's minds, but that only suggests that He doesn't exist, if in fact that's all He were (an idea).


So there must have been an eternity in which there was just God as a form of consciousness or spirit, without there being a world.
So, God didn't have a reflection on anything outside it.
This is conjecture. It's really hard to say exactly what happened, although I think this is similar to the account the book of Genesis gives.


We state however here that a consciouss being can not have existence without there being an objective reality outside, apart and independend of it, which in a way defines subjectivity.
This is certainly the way it appears on this temporal "physical plane." And yet how do we derive our standards from that which is temporary? Where do these "immutable laws" exist that hold reality together? (making it coherent). Certainly not with that which is temporary!


There can only be subjectiveness when there is something different from subjectiveness, thus in a the form of an objective material world.
And yet if God did exist, in another dimension, then we truly are living within the matrix ... Loaves and fishes anyone?
 
  • #12
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Who said God was subjective? Of course it's a "subjective idea" in many people's minds, but that only suggests that He doesn't exist, if in fact that's all He were (an idea).
It is said by most theists that God exists in the forms of spirt or consciousness, which in my mind are subjective entities themselves.

I can be wrong about that, since I am not a theist but a materialist.

My concept of God would be just this: the fundamental principle or idea residing in one's consciousness, that a material world exists (something outside of one's own consciousness).
It accounts for this, that we can make sense of the world, and establish the fact that we can know about the world. That our awarenesses about the world reflect on a real existing world, existing outside the mind as an objective entity, independend of the mind itself.

You can also think of it like this: God is to consciousness as a ROM BIOS eprom is to software. God is where consciousness and matter meet. The BIOS ROM eprom is where software and hardware meet.

It is the way in which we (our consciousness) can communicate with the outside material world.

This is conjecture. It's really hard to say exactly what happened, although I think this is similar to the account the book of Genesis gives.
Genesis is a bed time story for children.

And also they made some good music!

This is certainly the way it appears on this temporal "physical plane." And yet how do we derive our standards from that which is temporary? Where do these "immutable laws" exist that hold reality together? (making it coherent). Certainly not with that which is temporary!
Those laws only exist in our minds, as concept on which to hold grip on the material reality itself.
In reality only matter in eternal motion exist.

And yet if God did exist, in another dimension, then we truly are living within the matrix ... Loaves and fishes anyone?
I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
That's a very good question. :wink:

Of course if there was another "meta" dimension which we just called thought, then maybe it would be possible? And then again I would have to say yes, if in fact there were a Big Bang and a Creator who was responsible for it.

While I also think it's possible to be "sensory deprived," and still be conscious of "one's thoughts" (suggesting our thoughts are another dimension).

So, is it possible that a "spiritual" (non-physical) world existed before the Big Bang?
My statement is simply this. Something subjective (like consciousness) does not exist when there is no objective world.

Subjective is a relative term, it is stated on the basis that there is an objective world to which consciousnes is subjective.

Now let us performs an experiment here. While we don't want to rob a person from his sensory perceptions, we can simulate that situation in another way.

By some fairly simple means, we can mimimize our sensory input from the world, and experience what kind of consciousness results from that.

This is sometimes done for the purpose of relaxing oneself.

Take a tube large enough for a person to float in, fill it with water that has almost body temperature and add sufficient salt so that you can float in it without having to move, and provide some stuff for your ears and eyes as to not receive any outside signals.

When you are in this salt water tank for sufficient long time and can prevent for any outside signal to reach your consciousness, your thoughts will almost all fade and become random. Your normal thoughts are simply gone.

But as soon as you leave this situation and get input from the senses again, your normal thinking and consciousness come back.

What happened before the Big bang is still a big puzzle, but there is no possible way that it can be a result of some conscious action of some subjective being.

Cause without an objective world that already exists, subjectivity simply doesn't even exist and is indistinguishable from objectivity.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
My statement is simply this. Something subjective (like consciousness) does not exist when there is no objective world.

Subjective is a relative term, it is stated on the basis that there is an objective world to which consciousnes is subjective.
I would go so far as to say there's a relationship between the two, and that it's the difference between essence and form. Whereas to the degree that everything becomes "externalized" -- i.e., in an "objective sense" -- then the form loses its vitality (essence) and is no longer capable of interacting with other forms, meaning it would be considered "dead" or inanimate.


Now let us performs an experiment here. While we don't want to rob a person from his sensory perceptions, we can simulate that situation in another way.

By some fairly simple means, we can mimimize our sensory input from the world, and experience what kind of consciousness results from that.

This is sometimes done for the purpose of relaxing oneself.

Take a tube large enough for a person to float in, fill it with water that has almost body temperature and add sufficient salt so that you can float in it without having to move, and provide some stuff for your ears and eyes as to not receive any outside signals.

When you are in this salt water tank for sufficient long time and can prevent for any outside signal to reach your consciousness, your thoughts will almost all fade and become random. Your normal thoughts are simply gone.

But as soon as you leave this situation and get input from the senses again, your normal thinking and consciousness come back.
And yet I can become fully conscious in my dream state (and I have), and not know that where I'm at is where I think I ought to be, that is until I wake up. It can be that real! If you're interested please follow this link ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html


What happened before the Big bang is still a big puzzle, but there is no possible way that it can be a result of some conscious action of some subjective being.

Cause without an objective world that already exists, subjectivity simply doesn't even exist and is indistinguishable from objectivity.
Except that the "internal world" -- the life within or "essence" -- is what rules the external world -- the exterior shell or "form."

Indeed, without the life that "stirs within," there would be no impetus and hence movement to the "life without."
 
  • #15
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I would go so far as to say there's a relationship between the two, and that it's the difference between essence and form. Whereas to the degree that everything becomes "externalized" -- i.e., in an "objective sense" -- then the form loses its vitality (essence) and is no longer capable of interacting with other forms, meaning it would be considered "dead" or inanimate.
I have no idea what you want to express here. Sorry!

And yet I can become fully conscious in my dream state (and I have), and not know that where I'm at is where I think I ought to be, that is until I wake up. It can be that real! If you're interested please follow this link ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html
Hmmm. When I was young I had a strange dream. I was climbing a tree (in my dream) and while I was about to fall, I relaxed to myself and thought: don't worry, it's just a dream.



Except that the "internal world" -- the life within or "essence" -- is what rules the external world -- the exterior shell or "form."


Perhaps that idea is what is ruling your head, but your head does not rule the world.
 
  • #16
1,648
0
Originally posted by The Grimmus
i see no reason god wouldent because like in the movie dogma if god's word is infaulable then if god dosent beilve in god, god cant exist.....what
But would it suffice for God to just believe in Himself for Him to exist?

Wouldn't it be even He wanted proof that He is God?

After all, it could be that He just dreamt that that was the case, or imagined that, and that there were no grounds for His belief.

As I assume it, the situation for God would be fairly complex.
After all, He is only God if he is the Creator of the world, but how can he happen to know that or anything at all, when the world itself doesn't exist?
 
Last edited:
  • #17
1,481
0
heusdens,
You are trapped in you materialistic paradigm and your temporal thinking. Out side of spacetime there exists the reality of what we call the spiritual world or plane. It is and God is and knows that he is God. Has he not said and still says to all of us; "I am." God is the ultimate reality. This physical world is the illusion. It is real and real to us yet it is not as real as God.
God cannot be made to fit wholly in the material world as we know it because it is just the other way around the material world is wholly of God. We can put a foot into a sock but we cannot put the sock int a foot.
To better know God and the spiritual world we have to let go the limits of the material and temporal world. If we don't its like trying to comprehend a multidimentional world when we live in and know only one. It won't work. We simply can't twist our mind around to get ahold of a multidimentional shape.
 
  • #18
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
I have no idea what you want to express here. Sorry!
What is reality without the life (or soul) to animate it?


Hmmm. When I was young I had a strange dream. I was climbing a tree (in my dream) and while I was about to fall, I relaxed to myself and thought: don't worry, it's just a dream.
And yet one can and does become conscious within one's dreams which, is not tied to the external world, directly anyway.


Perhaps that idea is what is ruling your head, but your head does not rule the world.
Without an inner-world (the life within), there would be no "evolution" of the outer-world. It would be fixated or "dead."
 
  • #19
12
0
Hello to all...

The idea of god does not require 'thinking' Because the general definition/concept based on "he is anything an intelligent mortal can think of or can't think of" There is no before or after... Or any turning points.
Besides Big Bang is not a fully proved hypothesis. But it is not a mystery, why it turned out to be the most modern religion. *BANNG!* and there was the light!?

Ejderha
 
  • #20
1,648
0
Originally posted by Royce
heusdens,
You are trapped in you materialistic paradigm and your temporal thinking. Out side of spacetime there exists the reality of what we call the spiritual world or plane. It is and God is and knows that he is God. Has he not said and still says to all of us; "I am." God is the ultimate reality. This physical world is the illusion. It is real and real to us yet it is not as real as God.
God cannot be made to fit wholly in the material world as we know it because it is just the other way around the material world is wholly of God. We can put a foot into a sock but we cannot put the sock int a foot.
To better know God and the spiritual world we have to let go the limits of the material and temporal world. If we don't its like trying to comprehend a multidimentional world when we live in and know only one. It won't work. We simply can't twist our mind around to get ahold of a multidimentional shape.
Outside of matter, time and space, nothing does and can exist.

You know that, don't you?

All there is, ever was and ever will be, is infinite matter in eternal motion. That is what IS, and nothing else.
 
  • #21
1,648
0
Originally posted by Ejderha
Hello to all...

The idea of god does not require 'thinking' Because the general definition/concept based on "he is anything an intelligent mortal can think of or can't think of" There is no before or after... Or any turning points.
Besides Big Bang is not a fully proved hypothesis. But it is not a mystery, why it turned out to be the most modern religion. *BANNG!* and there was the light!?

Ejderha
For sure God requires thinking, because without us thinking in concepts and such, God would not even exist.

Big Bang is a fully proved scientific theory, although it is not what people think it is: the begin of time itself.
 
  • #22
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is reality without the life (or soul) to animate it?
What is consciousness, if we would not be consciouss?

But reality exists, independend of our consciousness.

There were no humans at the time the solar system formated.


Without an inner-world (the life within), there would be no "evolution" of the outer-world. It would be fixated or "dead."
Yeah, wnd who says that atoms or protons are hollow, and don't have an inner reality? Who?

An electron or proton is as inexhaustable as the universe itself.
 
  • #23
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
What is consciousness, if we would not be consciouss?

But reality exists, independend of our consciousness.

There were no humans at the time the solar system formated.
And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?


Yeah, and who says that atoms or protons are hollow, and don't have an inner reality? Who?

An electron or proton is as inexhaustable as the universe itself.
Well I guess I'm referring to those things which are living and grow from within, organically ... essentially what we mean by evolution.
 
  • #24
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?


We can not state anything about a creator, but we can state that we have brains, so it is probably the case that we have to find out for ourselves, using our brains. Wether or not the creator exists, is absolutely irrelevant to this.



Well I guess I'm referring to those things which are living and grow from within, organically ... essentially what we mean by evolution.
Ok.
 
  • #25
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
We can not state anything about a creator, but we can state that we have brains, so it is probably the case that we have to find out for ourselves, using our brains. Wether or not the creator exists, is absolutely irrelevant to this.
Do you believe that there's a source of all-knowing? Why not? ... It seems like "something" is there to tell us how the Universe is structured and put together. And yet it's certainly not us now is it? :wink:
 

Related Threads on Does God believe in himself?

Replies
7
Views
21K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
9K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
83
Views
6K
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
52
Views
6K
Top