What Is God?

[dauer]

I don't understand why it matters if everyone believes something different. As human knowledge and experience changes, our beliefs about God will inevitably change so I don't see any reversion happening unless society backslides, which is possible.

I don't see wrong with any beliefs, actually. Who cares what people believe? It's how their beliefs effect their lives and the lives of others that matters.

To me, where you're getting lost is thinking that God can be quantified by the human mind, somehow measured and objectified. Why does it have to go beyond experience? How do you know that it can? How do you know that the act of taking it beyond experience is not the highest form of heresy? I know, you have your absolute assumptions about the universe that give your God a more definite shape. But to me even an abstraction is merely an abstraction, and it would be idolatrous to think that it's God.

I guess the point of it all is to go through and come out on the other end. I've enjoyed our talk. I think you're too focused on creating some sort of final product, on both accounts. Life is a process. Enjoy. Stop thinking so hard.

Dauer

[smkolins]

One of the longer examinations of God is here

"As to the attributes and perfections such as will, knowledge, power and other ancient attributes that we ascribe to that Divine Reality, these are the signs that reflect the existence of beings in the visible plane and not the absolute perfections of the Divine Essence that cannot be comprehended. For instance, as we consider created things we observe infinite perfections, and the created things being in the utmost regularity and perfection we infer that the Ancient Power on whom dependeth the existence of these beings, cannot be ignorant; thus we say He is All-Knowing. It is certain that it is not impotent, it must be then All-Powerful; it is not poor, it must be All-Possessing; it is not non-existent, it must be Ever-Living. The purpose is to show that these attributes and perfections that we recount for that Universal Reality are only in order to deny imperfections, rather than to assert the perfections that the human mind can conceive. Thus we say His attributes are unknowable.
In fine, that Universal Reality with all its qualities and attributes that we recount is holy and exalted above all minds and understandings. As we, however, reflect with broad minds upon this infinite universe, we observe that motion without a motive force, and an effect without a cause are both impossible; that every being hath come to exist under numerous influences and continually undergoeth reaction. These influences, too, are formed under the action of still other influences. For instance, plants grow and flourish through the outpourings of vernal showers, whilst the cloud itself is formed under various other agencies and these agencies in their turn are reacted upon by still other agencies. For example, plants and animals grow and develop under the influence of what the philosophers of our day designate as hydrogen and oxygen and are reacted upon by the effects of these two elements; and these in turn are formed under still other influences. The same can be said of other beings whether they affect other things or be affected. Such process of causation goes on, and to maintain that this process goes on indefinitely is manifestly absurd. Thus such a chain of causation must of necessity lead eventually to Him who is the Ever-Living, the All-Powerful, who is Self-Dependent and the Ultimate Cause. This Universal Reality cannot be sensed, it cannot be seen. It must be so of necessity, for it is All-Embracing, not circumscribed, and such attributes qualify the effect and not the cause."

More direct and dense/rich examinations are here

".... Thou before Whose wisdom the wise falleth short and faileth, before Whose knowledge the learned confesseth his ignorance, before Whose might the strong waxeth weak, before Whose wealth the rich testifieth to his poverty, before Whose light the enlightened is lost in darkness, toward the shrine of Whose knowledge turneth the essence of all understanding and around the sanctuary of Whose presence circle the souls of all mankind...."

and again

"Every time I attempt to make mention of Thee, I am hindered by the sublimity of Thy station and the overpowering greatness of Thy might. For were I to praise Thee throughout the length of Thy dominion and the duration of Thy sovereignty, I would find that my praise of Thee can befit only such as are like unto me, who are themselves Thy creatures, and who have been generated through the power of Thy decree and been fashioned through the potency of Thy will."

[_Z_]

Dauer:

I see what you are saying, and in a way I agree – about the process, yet I wish to come out the other end with some idea rather than none! Moreover I believe the human mind may understand anything comprehensible [at least collectively] & some of that which is not! For me it matters very much what we believe in e.g. I new a Satanist once who believed that the world was evil and Satan created it, thus we can ‘do as thy will’ whatever it is! I don’t think god can be quantified by the human mind as such rather enveloped, and we can also say what he isn’t e.g. satan.

Can we experience god? I am as much a heretic as any one who has ever said anything about god or gods! Without such men there would be no church, religion or spirituality of any kind.

I too have enjoyed our talk, & I will consider you words as I consider you to be a wise man & respect you as such, but I couldn’t stop thinking philosophically in the way I do even if I tried .



Smkolins:

I’ll have a look and think about the links you provided [sounds interesting] – thank you. I know almost nothing of your faith.

I agree that god is beyond comprehension [the truth is naked], yet one may understand spiritual natures that are to fine for words [I call such essences ‘silent meaning’], we may perceive what infinity is to some degree yet we cannot put it in a test tube and say this is it.

The god that lies beyond all meaning is still the creator of all that is manifest – if we are to call him creator?

If all pervading then the creation is one with the creator, as we have not set a limit unto what he pervades, thence he would move through all things and also be all things! Thus we should perhaps say that either:

• He pervades all things but is not all things, thus is ‘all-pervading’ [but not in absolute terms] yet not all-including.
• He is god, then he pervades all - like a universal spirit, then he is his creation – as there is no duality unto the lord. Then he is pure unto himself yet extends though manifestation from the stars to natures base existences. This is also implied in the term ‘universal reality’!

What do you think of this?



I don’t think I will ever arrive at god through knowledge – but I’ll keep trying until all boundaries are broken.



Thanx all



Z

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Smkolins:

I’ll have a look and think about the links you provided [sounds interesting] – thank you. I know almost nothing of your faith.

An opportunity in the offing then - and I hope much to your interest!

Originally Posted by _Z_

I agree that god is beyond comprehension [the truth is naked], yet one may understand spiritual natures that are to fine for words [I call such essences ‘silent meaning’], we may perceive what infinity is to some degree yet we cannot put it in a test tube and say this is it.

Indeed indeed...

"The one true God is My witness! This most great, this fathomless and surging ocean is near, astonishingly near, unto you. Behold it is closer to you than your life vein! Swift as the twinkling of an eye ye can, if ye but wish it, reach and partake of this imperishable favor, this God-given grace, this incorruptible gift, this most potent and unspeakably glorious bounty."

"Know thou that every created thing is a sign of the revelation of God. Each, according to its capacity, is, and will ever remain, a token of the Almighty. Inasmuch as He, the sovereign Lord of all, hath willed to reveal His sovereignty in the kingdom of names and attributes, each and every created thing hath, through the act of the Divine Will, been made a sign of His glory. So pervasive and general is this revelation that nothing whatsoever in the whole universe can be discovered that doth not reflect His splendor. Under such conditions every consideration of proximity and remoteness is obliterated.... Were the Hand of Divine power to divest of this high endowment all created things, the entire universe would become desolate and void.....

It should be remembered in this connection that the one true God is in Himself exalted beyond and above proximity and remoteness. His reality transcendeth such limitations. His relationship to His creatures knoweth no degrees. That some are near and others are far is to be ascribed to the manifestations themselves."

Or as I sometimes put it God transcends all things, even our seperation from Him. He comes a mile so that we can walk an inch.

Originally Posted by _Z_

• He pervades all things but is not all things, thus is ‘all-pervading’ [but not in absolute terms] yet not all-including.
• He is god, then he pervades all - like a universal spirit, then he is his creation – as there is no duality unto the lord. Then he is pure unto himself yet extends though manifestation from the stars to natures base existences. This is also implied in the term ‘universal reality’!

What do you think of this?

I can see some of both, and yet offer a third perspective. He illumines all creation with light of His, yet that light carries nothing of His essence, albeit by it we can see and reflect something more than ourselves, for in our fragmented reflection God sees a bit of Himself in us, and when we look at eachother with His eyes we see a bit of Him in eachother. His essence and being is preserved from the limitations of our world, and His penetrating light illumines all things, yet "God is that God is".

[BlaznFattyz]

God is a Holy entity and creator of all things.

[_Z_]

Smkolins.

Baha’I is interesting indeed, in terms of meanings, but a little hard to understand the language of the text.



To text you graciously supplied has much good meaning & made sense – thank you.



There is a question inherent within all, and this question has perplexed me and everyone I have put it to of many faiths from Buddhists & Hindu’s to Christians and Muslims & some physicists…



q. Where does one draw the lines? You may have noticed I keep harping on about the notion ‘there are no absolute divisions between things’



As I see it there can be no divisions, thus all things and we are a part of god & vice versa! Yet paradoxically there is difference, we are we and god is god, quantum energy is itself and a part of all things including god. It is easy to say that everything is an illusion except nirvana or god yet e.g. nirvana could be an illusion of nothingness! There is only reality even a hallucination has a reality to it – in the mind or as experienced en-mass.

But I don’t want to get into the reality illusion argument [been there got the t-shirt, it goes nowhere], I just want to understand the paradox & ask if you think there are divisions?

As I see it we have god, then universal spirit followed by manifestations of the inner natures within infinity as they become of body [themselves] & form. There then is a little of divinity within every atom illuminating all of his existence & hell is the lack of it at the other end of the scale sending all to darkness and the concretising the intangible that it seams real and unmovable. This brings me to my next question [yes I know I am full of questions ] does hell exist? Eternity for me has not the base natures of earthliness, thus those who cannot become one with eternity are re-born – ‘like attracts like’!



Z

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Smkolins.

Baha’I is interesting indeed, in terms of meanings, but a little hard to understand the language of the text.

There are four core sets of scriptures in the Baha'i Faith. They have relatively different styles. 'Abdu'l-Baha tends to speak simply, Shoghi Effendy in extended details and specificty, and Baha'u'llah and the Bab speak with great authority and yet also using allusions and multiple meanings which tend to bring out the pov of the reader as point the reader past those impulses. I suggest you sample them and start where things seem to make more sense to you and then bridge out to the other styles.

Originally Posted by _Z_

To text you graciously supplied has much good meaning & made sense – thank you.

Thanks. If I said something illuminating it was hopefully more than an accident. However don't put to much in my words - lest when I fail, the impulse is to follow me.

Originally Posted by _Z_

q. Where does one draw the lines? You may have noticed I keep harping on about the notion ‘there are no absolute divisions between things’

I suggest the understanding and implications of the lines depend on "where you are at" and where the truth is of itself, and the differences and sameness between the two.

If there is no absolute, than how can there be "no absolute"?

As I see it the hard part is seeing the relative compared to the absolute.

Originally Posted by _Z_

As I see it there can be no divisions, thus all things and we are a part of god & vice versa!

That is a popular alterntive. I'm proposing another one. There is the absolute and the relative. The value of the relative is in it's ability to reflect the influence of the absolute, though it cannot become the absolute by doing so any more than the absolute can become the relative by it's influence. But the relationship is not equal, even as it is binding. The absolute can approach us, while we are ever far from it.

Originally Posted by _Z_

But I don’t want to get into the reality illusion argument [been there got the t-shirt, it goes nowhere], I just want to understand the paradox & ask if you think there are divisions?

A paradox is the result of the point of view. Or so goes an insight I had in high school.

Edges make no sense of themselves. A tree is seen and then a part of a house. There are no parts of houses - if there were no one could live in them and they would often come crashing down. But if you surpass the point of view and understand the house is behind the tree and that you can't see it from where you are at - if you have faith - then the paradox of a partial house next to a tree is not the reality, even though it is what you see.

But now comes the rub - at least some truths are almost never found in this world, and all truth found in this world is without proof of itself except by reliance on other truth - and you cannot prove all truth. It is even proved so Godel's Theorem. In reality the question is not what is the truth - it's what is convincing to you?

Originally Posted by _Z_

] does hell exist? Eternity for me has not the base natures of earthliness, thus those who cannot become one with eternity are re-born – ‘like attracts like’!

The Baha'i Scriptures relate that heaven and hell are the experience of being near and far from God. Those who cannot abide by His Presence are alone and lonely, left to themselves. Puzzled. Helpless unless helped. God can hold out longer than we can.

[_Z_]

If there is no absolute, than how can there be "no absolute"



Ah semantics dear chap! That’s just playing with words, its like saying ‘there is no truth, this then must be a lie therefore there is truth’. Whereas I am saying that in real terms there are no divisions – quantum energies have no edges and can appear from nothing, this is not a play on the term ‘absolute’ it is a statement of the real nature of existence relatively speaking, the words are simply an explanation yet are irrelevant to the actuality in itself. On the level of absolutes and the relative, where do we draw the lines on spirit? Is it not universal and boundless – primarily stateless, we cannot put everything into boxes and segmentalise existence as it is all multiples of the one, separate in its apparency joined by a common unifier & ultimately all of the same – everything is in everything.

Your take on the paradox is interesting, but more to do with perspectives. I am saying that parody is a function of existence – a principle that defies any kind of logic and is beyond logic. The universe [omniverse] can never be fully explained because there is always an element beyond explanation – same applies to god & spirit or any ambiguous nature! This why [as you say] one cannot actually prove any ‘truth’ & science is built out of method – a ‘proved’ truth built upon another through experiment and theory, yet if looked at singularly the truths are vague and non absolute.

I see the Baha’I scriptures believe similar to me that heaven and hell are polarities, and one is the lack of the other. The only difference is that of universal balance – that as reality has both within it, so do we & so to spirit – perhaps even god in some way? One has to learn to balance these things within ourselves and society, to keep away from extremities. Perhaps god is the balance – the heart, existence is made of opposites and extremities, thus by creating the universe he may keep his heart and centre being pure but is still held to the paradox thus in body [existence] is impure, yet the heart is infinite thus making the body ‘almost’ insignificant.

Z

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by _Z_

If there is no absolute, than how can there be "no absolute"

Ah semantics dear chap! That’s just playing with words, its like saying ‘there is no truth, this then must be a lie therefore there is truth’.

I disagree. Such problems are problems of limitation, not inherent to the way things are in themselves. Semanitics are the form or expression, but they reveal the presence of the paradox in one's thinking.

Originally Posted by _Z_

Whereas I am saying that in real terms there are no divisions – quantum energies have no edges and can appear from nothing...[/font][/size][/color]

You are hanging your hat on a theory - and theories evolve - there is string theory which allows very much for fuzziness.

Originally Posted by _Z_

Your take on the paradox is interesting, but more to do with perspectives. I am saying that parody is a function of existence – a principle that defies any kind of logic and is beyond logic..

And I am saying it is impossible to have a neutral point of view - there is only persective available to us. Even intuition is not removed from our condition. We intuit something and feel it from our pov. Christians feel Christ's forgiveness and grace, Hindus feel Krishna's and so on - near death experiences about along these lines. That isn't to suppose that there isn't anything else - just that whatever else there is isn't part of the human condition. Rather like Einstein - I remove the object viewer. All are relative, but there are absolutes, so there are diverse views on the absolutes and the forms they take vary according to circumstance, but in non-arbitrary ways. If I were to hang my hat on a theory that is.

One can elaborate from a point of view by adopting succeedingly distinct pov. But one cannot simulateously have all pov's. Light itself has something like a neutral pov but even that isn't the same as things in themselves. People simulate this by hoping paradigms within a sentence but for me it just disolves into a kind of confusion, where the effort is more important that what is said and the point of communication dwindles to a kind of nothing.

Originally Posted by _Z_

I see the Baha’I scriptures believe similar to me that heaven and hell are polarities, and one is the lack of the other. The only difference is that of universal balance – that as reality has both within it, so do we & so to spirit – perhaps even god in some way?

There are at least two forms allowing for evil - one is evil being a means of demonstrating good, while the other is to note when something seems evil but is only discomfort fundamentally, meant to make one grow.

"O Supreme Pen, We have heard Thy most sweet call in the eternal realm: Give Thou ear unto what the Tongue of Grandeur uttereth, O Wronged One of the worlds!

Were it not for the cold, how would the heat of Thy words prevail, O Expounder of the worlds?

Were it not for calamity, how would the sun of Thy patience shine, O Light of the worlds?

Lament not because of the wicked. Thou wert created to bear and endure, O Patience of the worlds.

How sweet was Thy dawning on the horizon of the Covenant among the stirrers of sedition, and Thy yearning after God, O Love of the worlds.

By Thee the banner of independence was planted on the highest peaks, and the sea of bounty surged, O Rapture of the worlds.

By Thine aloneness the Sun of Oneness shone, and by Thy banishment the land of Unity was adorned. Be patient, O Thou Exile of the worlds.

We have made abasement the garment of glory, and affliction the adornment of Thy temple, O Pride of the worlds.

Thou seest the hearts are filled with hate, and to overlook is Thine, O Thou Concealer of the sins of the worlds.

When the swords flash, go forward! When the shafts fly, press onward! O Thou Sacrifice of the worlds.

Dost Thou wail, or shall I wail? Rather shall I weep at the fewness of Thy champions, O Thou Who hast caused the wailing of the worlds...."

"O SON OF MAN ! My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy. Hasten thereunto that thou mayest become an eternal light and an immortal spirit. This is My command unto thee, do thou observe it."

[_Z_]

Smkolins: interesting. Please don’t think I am being argumentative for the sake of it – just stuff that’s going around in my mind at present. Your answers have been intelligent and profound – I have listened!

Yes the paradox is revealed in such notions, the mind goes beyond our words yet sometimes one only listens to the voice of the mind and not the silence that is screaming for acknowledgement.

Yes there are many scientific theories around & most will be surpassed at some point, but I’ll hang on to the philosophical notion of ‘indivision’ as I believe it to transcends science! I still believe that there is room for both of our understandings if the principle is true, I am developing my ideas & probably always will be.

Yes I see your point on perspectives relative to the human condition [similar to what Dauer was saying], I suppose to have any theory of what god is [if at all], then we must go beyond this. When I look at the night sky & consider the universe it is not all that human after all! I was perceiving things form a everything is in everything angle which would include the human nature [and all natures], yet this is probably only a tiny fragment of ‘IT’.

I’ll have a good long think on this aspect.



I think we have somewhat similar ideas on the nature of evil and its temporary nature as being infinitesimal compared to gods beyond infinite!

"O SON OF MAN ! My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy. Hasten thereunto that thou mayest become an eternal light and an immortal spirit. This is My command unto thee, do thou observe it."

Are we all included in the ‘son of man’ part? Is it a way of saying; move away from the base natures, from darkness & distance from divinity, towards lightness clarity and nearness within the universal oneness of my [gods] heart.



Btw. This is very humanlike! If god is essentially not human then would he ask anything of us, is it then for us to better ourselves for our own purposes?

Z