What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[Siv]

If I had to choose, I'd go in for the Deistic version.
The sum total of the patterns/order in the universe.

- S.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
The whole concept of 'God' doesn't even fit into my brain. No offense to anyone, but I can't see it as being a meaningful term. Something that is invisible, doesn;t interact, and is everywhere and nowhere at once?[/color] I think it is an invention of people who didn't know any better.

Use your imagination man! That's what God gave it to you for!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Use your imagination man! That's what God gave it to you for!

'God' is a concept which is not borne of the imagination - but of reason. It's a deductive concept, existing in our minds, exactly like the concept of 'infinity', for example.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator - as the possible essence of all existence - is borne of reason. Those who claim to not comprehend that concept are not failing to use their imaginations - they're failing to use their intelligence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
'God' is a concept which is not borne of the imagination - but of reason. It's a deductive concept, existing in our minds, exactly like the concept of 'infinity', for example.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator - as the possible essence of all existence - is borne of reason. Those who claim to not comprehend that concept are not failing to use their imaginations - they're failing to use their intelligence.

God is not just a concept, but a reality which is to be experienced. Therefore it requires the use of your imagination as well.

And, while I can't say I've experienced God person to person, I can say I've experienced the "reality of God" which, is about all one can hope to accomplish. Perhaps this is what you mean by concept, I don't know?

Whereas we see by the light of the sun (truth/intelligence) and are sustained by its warmth (love/imagination).

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
God is not just a concept, but a reality which is to be experienced.

Proving the reality of the concept, or having direct experience of that concept, is something else altogether. The thread is about "defining" God - not proving that God exists. I'm merely making the point that the human-mind is quite capable of grasping the existence of the concept without having had direct experience or proof of that concept's actual existence. For example, everyone more-or-less understands what 'infinity' and 'nothing' are; but no human mind has ever grasped these concepts within their experience. The concepts are intangible. The concepts are merely understood by the mind. By reason.

Therefore it requires the use of your imagination as well.

I disagree. I believe it takes faith & trust in knowing that the reasoned-concept (God) has a reality unto itself. Imagination is only required to formulate a subjective-God (a limited God). Reason, however, understands that the concept of God is boundless (non-finite). Thus, imagination is actually meaningless in relation to this attribute (boundlessness); for it is meaningless to formulate a imagined-opinion of God if one understands the boundlessness that is intrinsic to that concept.

 

[Iacchus32]

Proving the reality of the concept, or having direct experience of that concept, is something else altogether. The thread is about "defining" God - not proving that God exists.[/color] I'm merely making the point that the human-mind is quite capable of grasping the existence of the concept without having had direct experience or proof of that concept's actual existence. For example, everyone more-or-less understands what 'infinity' and 'nothing' are; but no human mind has ever grasped these concepts within their experience. The concepts are intangible. The concepts are merely understood by the mind. By reason.

What would you have me do make something up here? If I "know" something exists, then why should I have to imply I only believe that it exists? Either God is a reality or He isn't. If He is then He's something to be experienced.

This is what the whole of Christendom seems to suggest (I'm referring to the New Testament here), that you come to except Him personally, and actually "know" that He exists. And, while I may doubt the validity of many who claim they do (primarily those who subscribe to organized religion), it still doesn't discount the possibility that it happens.

While you can postulate about "God the concept" all you like, but that don't mean Jack ... If you're looking for the "god of reason," I would suggest approaching the "god Apollo," you might have better luck.

I disagree. I believe it takes faith & trust in knowing that the reasoned-concept (God) has a reality unto itself. Imagination is only required to formulate a subjective-God (a limited God). Reason, however, understands that the concept of God is boundless (non-finite). Thus, imagination is actually meaningless in relation to this attribute (boundlessness); for it is meaningless to formulate a imagined-opinion of God if one understands the boundlessness that is intrinsic to that concept.

I would much rather experience His presence and bask in the warmth of His Love.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What would you have me do make something up here? If I "know" something exists, then why should I have to imply I only believe that it exists? Either God is a reality or He isn't. If He is then He's something to be experienced.

You can only "know" something via one of two ways:- 1. Reason.
2. Experience.

My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real.
But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

While you can postulate about "God the concept" all you like, but that don't mean Jack

If you do not understand the meaning of the Divine concept, then how can you come to "know" God? Surely, your knowledge of God is dependent upon what you think that 'God' is. A person must have an understanding of what God is before he/she can come to know 'it'.
Hence, an understanding of 'God the concept' is essential if you ever want to pursue a meaningful relationship with that God.

... If you're looking for the "god of reason," I would suggest approaching the "god Apollo," you might have better luck.

Like I said, anything finite does not fulfil the reasoned criteria for a 'God'. For all things finite are limited. Apollo is not a God of reason.

I would much rather experience His presence and bask in the warmth of His Love. [/B]

Me too. But I don't like to kid myself that any warm feelings that I experience might be emanating from God.
Did you say you were a Christian?

 

[Iacchus32]

My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real.
But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

Do you see my new Avatar? If you go to the thread "The Advent of Color" (God & Religion Forum) I explain what it means. This is just one of many things I've used to validate my experience. And yes, it all has to do with validating things for yourself.

Did you say you were a Christian?

This is only a label, for what otherwise can be understood through "common sense." So in this respect I'm not like most "practicing Christians." Whereas I'm pretty general in my views and try to remain down to earth.

Also, you may want to check out my book by following the link below. Lots of interesting parallels between Dionysus, the Greek of wine, and the inception of Christianity.

 

[Kerrie]

Lifegazer~

My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real. But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

i completely believe that our instinct, intelligence, and intuition are what what people call "god", but fail to realize that it is not separate from them...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Kerrie
Lifegazer~


i completely believe that our instinct, intelligence, and intuition are what what people call "god", but fail to realize that it is not separate from them...

Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all.

 

[N_Quire]

Lifegazer wrote: "Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

 

[M. Gaspar]

"God" is just a nickname

The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

It wasn't "created" by an "outside force" that we call "God", but is, in fact, a Being whose life cycle(s) spans the time between each "Big Bang" and a subsequent "Big Crunch".

It is an Entity of Energy, whose natural forces give rise to everything that is, has been, and will be...including us. The Universe has NO PLAN...only an INTENTION...It's PRIMARY WILL, which is: to have another Experience, albeit a very complex one consisting of that of each life experience of each being that has lived, is living, and will every live within THIS incarnation of the Universe.

If It had a "Primary Question" it would be: What can I create THIS time? Because we are extensions of the Creative Being that is the Universe, our question should also be: What can I create THIS time?

"God" a nickname for a primitive idea that has "Him" (or even "Her") as an external force that "created" Everything That Is, when, in fact (loosely speaking, of course, as ALL IS THEORY!), Everything That Is is the living/conscious Universe that pulses on!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer wrote: "Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

True. It comes across like that. But this topic is about defining God - not proving that 'it' exists. However, most of the regulars here know that my ~belief~ of God emanates from a reason which, for me at least, enables me to know the existence of God
without having to rely on "blind faith".

 

[Iacchus32]

What's the point in defining God, if it isn't to prove He exists? Or, at least allow the opportunity for others to ascertain it (or prove) for themselves?

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, The Mystery Within ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

The truth of God is without, the whole material universe. The Essence of God is within. Whereas the truth is discerned, and the essence is to be experienced. So why do we go to such great lengths to uncover the truth, when we don't partake of the experience which gives birth to it? We seek the truth in "its effect," but we don't seek the Life which leads to it?

The Mystery of Life, is also the mystery of conception and birth.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What's the point in defining God, if it isn't to prove He exists? Or, at least allow the opportunity for others to ascertain it (or prove) for themselves?

Exactly. We need to define that concept before we can discuss the possible existence of that concept. That is the point.

 

[M. Gaspar]

LIFEGAZER: I do NOT base my thesis on "blind faith". It is through REASON that I have come to "believe" that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

I do not have to "prove" the Universe exists. Nor do I have to prove that it is "living" and "conscious".

To tell you the truth, I am not seeking dialogue with those who see "God" as "outside" the Universe as It's "creator". The Universe, in my belief system, is an "Eternal Entity of Energy" with a life cycle that moves from one incarnation to another, from one "Big Bang" though "Big Crunch" to "Big Bang" etc. etc...

My interest is in cosmology, but not just the PHYSICAL Universe. I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of CONSCIOUSNESS is an incomplete theory.

I have some theories about the nature and evolution of consciousness that relates to the laws of physics, which is why I have come to this site.

I am seeking dialogue with minds that PROCESS INFO -- not minds that are HOOKED ON STORIES -- and am about to start a search on this site, within all of its categories, until I identify perhaps 8 persons with whom I would like discourse.

This may take some time, but I'm looking forward to it!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
LIFEGAZER: I do NOT base my thesis on "blind faith". It is through REASON that I have come to "believe" that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

I do not have to "prove" the Universe exists. Nor do I have to prove that it is "living" and "conscious".

To tell you the truth, I am not seeking dialogue with those who see "God" as "outside" the Universe as It's "creator". The Universe, in my belief system, is an "Eternal Entity of Energy" with a life cycle that moves from one incarnation to another, from one "Big Bang" though "Big Crunch" to "Big Bang" etc. etc...

My interest is in cosmology, but not just the PHYSICAL Universe. I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of CONSCIOUSNESS is an incomplete theory.

I have some theories about the nature and evolution of consciousness that relates to the laws of physics, which is why I have come to this site.

I am seeking dialogue with minds that PROCESS INFO -- not minds that are HOOKED ON STORIES -- and am about to start a search on this site, within all of its categories, until I identify perhaps 8 persons with whom I would like discourse.

This may take some time, but I'm looking forward to it!

Make a post in the philosophy forum. Let 'them' find you. I look forward to hearing your views. Welcome.

 

[N_Quire]

Lifegazer, your style of introspection and the quirky results it provides are not what many of us would consider reason. However preposterous, untestable and untenable your conclusions, you consider them to be the products of reason merely because you dreamt them up.

Introspection with little or no background and fieldwork in science and philosophy will never be anything more than armchair philosophising or bar-stool wisdom.

You should first grasp what you mean, and what others mean, by such seemingly simple words and concepts as reason, ultimate, fundamental, truth, absolute, reality, etc, etc. You cannot simply ascribe to these terms a Lifegazer meaning and then use those meanings to arrive at more and more ludicrous conclusions.

It has been pointed out time and time again that you have not fully understood materialism, nor that there is more to science and philosophy science than materialism. Your notion of The Mind and other such fluff does not advance our knowledge in any way.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Wrong Object of Scorn

I believe, N Quire, that you're addressing ME with your derision.
It is MY speculations -- not Lifegazer's -- that propose that the Universe might be a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts...etc.

I especially loved your saying that my ideas are not products of reason just because I dreamt them up. You made me smile.

...although I don't remember using such words as "fundamental truth" or "absolute reality," I will say that I do believe the Universe at least EXISTS (or what are the physicists studying?) and that there is CONSCIOUSNESS "in" the Universe (or what would they be studying WITH?).

So let me add this: Any theory of cosmology that does NOT include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an INCOMPLETE THEORY.

I'm sure you'll agree (still smiling).

 

[Iacchus32]

God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer, your style of introspection and the quirky results it provides are not what many of us would consider reason.

Why?

However preposterous, untestable and untenable your conclusions,

I don't mind criticism. I just don't like unsupported criticism.

you consider them to be the products of reason merely because you dreamt them up.

I reasoned them up. I wasn't asleep when I became aware of my ideas.

Introspection with little or no background and fieldwork in science and philosophy

That's a fact. I'm not a physicist nor an expert in philosophical-figures (and their thoughts) of the past. I have openly-admitted this to anybody who has ever asked.
But I consider reason to be the source of all knowledge. Not history. Reason precedes any historical experience. That's why I serve reason as opposed to history (knowledge). I just use knowledge (when/where I have it) for the creation of further reasoned-fact.

will never be anything more than armchair philosophising or bar-stool wisdom.

That's probably correct. But that's due to our class-structure, as much as anything else. Gimme a BSc. if you will - would my argument now become more credible?

It has been pointed out time and time again...

That's what the church said to Darwin.

The Mind and other such fluff does not advance our knowledge in any way.

Your mind seems beyond advancement. It's closed.

 

[N_Quire]

M.Gaspar, My comments cannot have been aimed at you because I haven't read a word you've written. I addressed Lifegazer. S/he and I are in the habit of exchanging friendly banter from time to time.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
'God' is a concept which is not borne of the imagination - but of reason. It's a deductive concept, existing in our minds, exactly like the concept of 'infinity', for example.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator - as the possible essence of all existence - is borne of reason. Those who claim to not comprehend that concept are not failing to use their imaginations - they're failing to use their intelligence.

Using all reason I can possible find, I can just conclude that God fails to exist... An omnipotent creature that fails to exist, has fundamental deficits, if you ask me. There is not a time, and there is not a place, where God exists.

Instead of this, the world does not fail to exist, that is why I and my mind do exist also! The world never fails to exist, and is present everywhere!

I do not have to wonder about that, or ask for proof. Weather I reason about it or not, the world simply does not fail to exist, and has existence of it's own! The world has omnipresence (wherever and whenever one can be, or something can be, the world IS) and has omnipotence (whatever can exist, will become existent).

Now I call that something, whereas God does not fit into any reason about the world. It lacks any fundamental reason for it's existence, lacks any proof of existence, lacks existence in spatio-temporal way, and can't possible serve, even as a mind-concept, any usefull purpose for the existing world. Any statement considering God, or acts of God, in relation to the real existing world, is worthless, in that it can not possible lead to an increase in knowledge about the world as it is. The only way of increasing knowledge about the world is to research the world, investigate it, etc. There will never be a time that we will have all knowledge about the world, yet we will always be able to increase our knowledge about the world.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by heusdens
Now I call that something, whereas God does not fit into any reason about the world. It lacks any fundamental reason for it's existence, lacks any proof of existence, lacks existence in spatio-temporal way, and can't possible serve, even as a mind-concept, any usefull purpose for the existing world. Any statement considering God, or acts of God, in relation to the real existing world, is worthless, in that it can not possible lead to an increase in knowledge about the world as it is. The only way of increasing knowledge about the world is to research the world, investigate it, etc. There will never be a time that we will have all knowledge about the world, yet we will always be able to increase our knowledge about the world.

this claim depends on your defintion of god..what is your defintion of what god is or could be? when you have the ACCEPTED defintion of god according to everyone else you are then setting the bounds of what god can or cannot do...it is up to the individual to decide what the *concept of god* is...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Kerrie
this claim depends on your defintion of god..what is your defintion of what god is or could be? when you have the ACCEPTED defintion of god according to everyone else you are then setting the bounds of what god can or cannot do...it is up to the individual to decide what the *concept of god* is...

I was reacting to a definition of someone else (Lifegazer), and on basis of that definition was explaining what God in that context would or would not be, and how meaningfull such a concept could be.

I myself don't have a definition of God, cause I don't think it is a meaningfull concept, at least not in relation to explaining reality.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Does the Universe exist...?

Or do we have to PROVE that, too?

So if we can say that the UNIVERSE exists...and if we can define the Universe as "Everything That Is" (which would INCLUDE "GOD")

...or, better yet, if we wanted to view the Universe as a living, conscious Entity NOT created by an outisde force ("God") but, rather, an an "Eternal Entity of Energy" ITSELF...

...then, loosely speaking, we could call the Universe ITSELF "God"

...hence "proving" the "existence of God" since the existence of the Universe ITSELF is a "given".

Anyone interested in entertaining the thought that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts?

 

[Kerrie]

i somewhat agree with you M Gaspar, but i would go further to say that the *ability* for life to exist, think, learn, grow, love, feel, fight, intuit, understand, etc is the essence of *god*...without these abilities, there would be nothing...

 

[M. Gaspar]

Kerrie...

All the "abilities" (as you call them) to think, learn, grow, love, feel, intuit, understand...might all be natural functions of the living Entity that is the Universe.

Are these the "essense" of the Universe...or just part of the package? I don't know. However, I cannot agree that without these particular -- or similar -- functions, "there would be nothing."

I can envision a Universe WITHOUT consciousness or emotion (etc.)...and It could still EXIST...but it would be a LESSER Universe without them.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I can envision a Universe WITHOUT consciousness or emotion (etc.)...and It could still EXIST...but it would be a LESSER Universe without them. [/B]

i think the will of the universe is to express these abilities, without them, the universe would simply cease to exist...i think these abilities are necessary-in even the smallest form-to happen...