What Is God?

[_Z_]

WHAT IS GOD? well someones got to ask



In light of recent debates I really need to try and get some kind of understanding of what god is! I am not concerned with the question ‘does god exist’, just that if he does then what is he? Everyone I have talked to over the years says its impossible to comprehend god, well yes it is because to comprehend him is to shrink him into a box, yet god is beyond infinite imo. There are however ways to envelope a basic understanding of what god is by two methods [please add more if you want] –

• We can try to say what god is, then realising that this is not true eliminate the example. Like e.g. god is infinite – well no because infinity is a dimension & even if there is infinite spirit then this does not describe an intellect that can put the entire universe together - infinity is boundless & stateless thus cannot form meaning or ‘think’ in any context of the term except I suppose pure thought non changing.
• So we can use various processes of elimination, now can we say that god must be a given thing? for example...

Is god universal? Not sure on this one – would god then be both good and evil or are these things only relevant to the dualistic world, thus god is pure in his own nature yet paradoxically impure in his body i.e. the universe? This actually makes sense to me as we are built in his likeness & life seams to be about balancing the good and bad within us and around us!


I have a little philosophical formula for finding universal natures; it = either neither & both of a dichotomy or dualism e.g. if we ask is god male or female then he would be essentially neither but can be both or either, thus he cannot be singularly one!

Or is god omni-present? To be omni-present then god would be there when all manner of evil occurs! And is within the most gross & crass of existences, he would also be within us & the devil?





_Z_

[dauer]

Z,

So if you begin with the existence of God and then negate negate negate, then no single thing within the natural order is God. But at the same time, while conceptually is is difficult for us to grasp, the whole of the natural order is also a single thing, even if it has no parallel. This to me seem like the very reaching that led to arguments like, "My God/Prophet/Revelation is bigger than yours!" until finally ST:Voyager happened and everyone was on a smaller spaceship. I'm not sure how much you're gonna prove by going bigger, even conceptually, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Dauer

[_Z_]

Yes I can see the folly & potential pitfalls and I am sure there are many, but should we be afraid to ask? Without some kind of understanding of god I can have no basis for my religious understanding. There are certain issues that I underlined concerning the universality of god etc.
as with the notion of the universe being gods body and god in his ‘naked truth’ being the spirit and we his children [how’s that for a trinity! ] I see no hierarchy, indeed the duality is in the understanding of the thing not the thing itself!


Z

[dauer]

It seems to me that seeing the universe as God's body, God as the spirit of that body, and we as God's children is just a basic theology, like any other, not coming from an attempt to understand God but instead from the very familiar human position of trying to put a face on God. And I can relate to that completely.

I think that in order to understand God, first you have to understand why you're not bothering with the question of whether or not God is. What type of evidence do you have? How does that evidence come to you? At what point is your mind going beyond the evidence and is there any way that your mind can clear up anything unclear that comes along with the evidence?

I'm not sure if you find yourself stumbling in the same places I do, but as a rabbi I know of has written and spoken on, theology comes after experience.


It's these things that keep me an agnostic always willing to get more than just his feet wet.

Dauer

[_Z_]

Yes I am guilty of giving god a face, funny really as usually I deconstruct any notion of what god is. This is how I [in accordance to the druidic tradition – although they did not call ‘it’ god’] arrive at the idea that ‘the truth is naked’ which seams to be a universal theme for the incomprehensibility of god.

As for evidence, well this is a personal thing for most. Through meditation I arrived at the void & found it full! Full of mind and being, yet empty and transparent, note a rather Buddhist tone here. From there I have tried to work out how we can have the two kinds of reality existing as one i.e. in Buddhism the physical universe is considered to be an illusion, and then in the modern atheist scientific worldview the opposite is true. I try to attain a view that is essentially not based on dualistic conceptualisation, thence endeavouring to bring together god and the universe without an ‘easy escape route’ of illusion.

Ok, let me add this statement if I may, as it is also fundamental to my belief system – by the way I don’t mind if anyone annihilates my system as I will gladly move on in the light of truth!

“There are no divisions between things”

Is this universally true or fundamentally true?

If fundamentally so then god and his creation are ultimately one, or if universally true [excluding holism obviously] then there is no distinction whatsoever, which implies that there would be no ‘god in his own right’?

Of course we have not even asked if god is a creator? I am not sure if the universe brought itself into being – if the ‘ultimate nature of existence’ [thinking here from a perspective external to the universe and all existence] contains ‘everythingness’ or everything is within it unmanifest, then all existences [including us] are the manifest form of themselves so to say. It all sounds over complicated but that’s words for you! I usually begin at the notion ‘the simplest thing’ or absolute simplicity, then branch out from there.


Edit: I forgot to add that the universe probably does not have a beginning or end, thus spirit may be transformed accordingly – when humanity is arrived at in the physical world then the relative aspect of spirit is drawn forth form its unmanifest form, which in turn ‘demands’ that the physical universe will arrive at humanity?




Z

[dauer]

Okay, so, let me sidestep what you said for a moment to elaborate on what I was asking.

Your evidence is that during meditation something happened. Now, tell me if I'm wrong but I'm going to guess that you didn't really arrive at the void, because at the void you dissolved into whatever-it-was, into the happening of that moment. I'll be clear that I'm not speaking from experience, only what I've gleaned from various sources and teachers. Please clarify if I'm incorrect. So you couldn't have found it full, or empty. Of anything. All of that happened in the moment after the fact when you, your self, finally became experiencable as individual again. All of that stuff that came after was just your mind trying to make sense of it all, trying to fit it somehow into the known reality map.

As I would understand it, for you the evidence is that very moment, which is beyond all language. The language comes after, when you're grasping for straws. And it may be important for mental health that this experience gets grafted in somehow. It may be unavoidable as well. But I don't think that the moment you had should automatically give rise to the notion of infinite space, infinite time, or anything else so quantifiable.

I'm not saying I reject monism. I think it's a beautiful myth, along with all of the other beautiful myths, and pragmatically I think it's very healthy.

So if you decided to follow my line of reasoning, I did, all you're left with is a moment, no justification, only a moment, and maybe many other moments, different even, where you would also say "God." Maybe not.

Now, on to what you said. I'd say there definitely are divisions between things. Even if we take monism into account, for us there are division and that has to be dealt with somehow. In our day to day lives, we need divisions.

Your last paragraph, oy. I'm not going to bother until a stronger basis for such advanced discourse has been established.

Dauer

[_Z_]

Concerning your point 1: well that is the strange thing, I did not dissolve into it I ‘viewed it’ as an observer, yet there was nothing else bar me and ‘it’ for that brief moment that was so real. I see what you meant though. How can one have a void yet also a manifest being [albeit in spirit form]? This is the very parallel to the question ‘how can there be a universe yet still there’s an emptiness’? Well we can separate them in terms of time and timelessness, the primordial spirit/primary being/god as his own nature/void ‘exists’ in the timeless domain, and form exists in quantized time. The only way I can equate this is by drawing the conclusion that ‘spirit’ is freeform; it can be of any nature. Perhaps god shares spirit yet is still more than this! If we think of god as like us then he may have spirit & mind as we do, yet they are only parts of our nature. We can shape our world so he can shape his? If so then he can be the maker of law and principle by which all things are moulded.

I think I may move to your point about division:

On a daily basis – as with holism – yes there are divisions. I wont go too much into science here, but there are no absolute edges to quantum energies, [I suppose that is another debate for the physicists]. Also as I said above, spirit is formless or has freedom of shape, form & nature, thus there are no absolute divisions in spirit? If spirit [I have no other term to use, so I am probably taking it out of context in some peoples eyes] has edges, then it cannot be pan dimensional or omni-anything. Whereas I am using the term as a ‘common unifier’ to arrive at oneness within the multiplicity, as I feel there must be?

Next point: yes I am rushing things somewhat, we may discuss aspects as we go – I have a terrible habit of trying to explain one thing through everything, as I am sure you know, the mind connects thing so – I must try and stick to specifics.



Btw, I am not trying to seam clever and a know it all, I genuinely think about this stuff much of the time & keep trying to push myself on.





Z

[dauer]

Z,

Isn't it anthropocentric to say that God might very well be similar to us? Isn't that what led previous generations to describe God in human terms? For me, any assumption about God's nature based on our own nature isn't a far cry from that. What makes humans special? I could go further. What makes life so special anyway? Everything on this planet is going to be wiped out by some calamity eventually. What makes me any better than an asteroid being hurled through space?

I can't go along with any assumption about God based on the way humans are, not that I'm going to try and refute it either.

What I was really saying in my last post is that any intellectual meandering you do is not the content of your revelatory moment. It's your attempt to come to grips with it. The moment is the moment. All the theology comes after.

I will agree so far as to say that all of physicality is physicality and therefore it all carries some common characteristics, it's all the same stuff, but this does not necessarily mean that all is one in the sense in which you speak.

If I made a pile of rocks, the whole pile would be rocks. I could even say that that the pile is all one pile of rocks, but the moment I go beyond that and suggest that all of the rocks are one most people are going to disagree with me.

Dauer

[_Z_]

Dauer:



Verging on the nihilistic here! . ok yes we do see god through a human perspective, hence my use of the term ‘universal approach’ that I often use. Yes we should try to see god in terms of human & all of nature and the universe – which I try to do, however the human form is the most advanced on this planet, can you think of a form of being that is greater? We could for example have four arms like a Hindu god, yet this would be cumbersome in a physical form and use up much of our brains recourses! Indeed we could have larger brains, yet I read somewhere that this also would be cumbersome as the connections would be greater and over complex.

Lets leave that argument to one side though as your point is still valid & we have to consider that there may well be a more advanced form. However advanced a being is – even if like a personified god-form [like pagan versions etc.], that being would surely have universal qualities that we humans have & to a lesser degree the animal kingdom too. Ethics & a quest for understanding would surely be a part of any intelligent beings goals, and they would no doubt ponder upon similar philosophical lines as we do – given that they would look up at the night sky and also see stars.

Perhaps the end of humanity is inevitable as is the end of our lives, it may be so that there is only so much the soul can learn from this world!

“ The moment is the moment” – Ok I see what you mean about the intellectualisation after the event! So you don’t believe in the direct experience of a given thing? Or instant knowing? Don’t animals live and ‘think’ according to the direct understanding of the moment – at least mainly.

I am not saying that a pile of rocks are one thing – but I take your point & hope that is not what I inferred. I would say that if for example E=MC2 then all the elements of the formula are transferable thus is there not a common unifier in this? Also the universe began as the singularity in [as is currently understood] a single point – is this not a kind of unity [one within the one]? Or the singularity began as an infinite plain – a different shape of one! Then there is infinity itself, what is it made of [I know it is usually only a description of dimension]? When the singularity is at the primary event point/plain, it is within an infinite void [not nothingness!] - & this is the tricky bit:

If we view the singularity [or the physical universe] as self-contained and without end like a bubble, and energy is conserved [is of a given amount] then what is its mirror in the void/infinity? If it were nothingness then there is nothing to stop the singularity from expanding into the infinite, thus I would say that infinity is not quite zero. To add to this and to come back to the point of oneness; what is it that can be energy time space & everything? No one defined thing can describe or encapsulate the other, that is: an understanding of energy cannot define & include time as one thing etc. then there is the point that quarks & other quantum energies can literally appear from nothingness – as science describes it! But I would say that they don’t appear from nothingness but from infinity and another quantum energy would thence disappear to maintain the balance of conserved energy.
Lets not forget principles/laws & their role e.g. finite infinite and infinitesimal, tie them in a knot and we have the reason why energy is conserved and ‘quantum’ what then makes law?


We are now venturing into the question of ‘does god exist’, as soon as we do this there are many loose end’s as we don’t yet know if universe begins and ends – thus emanates from something/somewhere – or if it is continually re-born – which is an infinity paradox! This is why I did not ask the above question.



If we take away the universe - as if it has been and gone - to leave us with a blank sheet to work on, then what is that blank sheet? Firstly in a philosophical context then in a reality & or physical context i.e. what are all things mixed together as one?

What is the simplest thing?

Why does everything fit together with all the symmetry asymmetry and beauty of existence & like attract like etc. and why do co-incidences occur so – is it perhaps because there is a common unifier! For me it is an impossibility that it is not due to a super intellect!

everything is in everything.




Z

[dauer]

however the human form is the most advanced on this planet, can you think of a form of being that is greater?

That statement is entirely anthropocentric. At one time the dinosaurs were the most evolved species on earth and they looked almost nothing like us. It's possible another species will evolve in the future that looks nothing like us and is far greater than us. To assume that God is a being at all is our assumption based on the fact that we are beings. Certainly God would be the greatest of beings according to that line of thinking.

Ethics & a quest for understanding would surely be a part of any intelligent beings goals, and they would no doubt ponder upon similar philosophical lines as we do – given that they would look up at the night sky and also see stars.

I'm not sure if you're implying that God has ethics or that other beings must have ethics or that God has an intelligence or an intelligence in any way comparable to our own but I personally don't think we can make those assumptions.

Ok I see what you mean about the intellectualisation after the event! So you don’t believe in the direct experience of a given thing? Or instant knowing? Don’t animals live and ‘think’ according to the direct understanding of the moment – at least mainly.

It's two different things. There is the moment, and then the computing of that moment. When you're taking in data, you can't compute it at the same time. First you get the data. Then you compute it. Even if it happens quickly, and even if your initial assessment of the data is influenced by previous assumptions. So if I go out into the woods and I'm walking along a path and I see a squirrel, the first thing my mind does is register:

"SQUIRREL!" and then it starts to wonder. "Oh, I wonder if it came from a nearby tree, where it was going, if it's foraging for food, etc etc. All of that comes after. In fact, even the word "SQUIRREL" is a part of that initial assessment. The purest of the pure is simply the experience of being in the presence of that squirrel, without all of the extraneous theology.

Now, as far as quantum physics are concerned, in the present moment all is not one. It is just as a pile of stones. They all share similar properties, similar makeup. But when you get down to it, they're really all separate stones. There is nothing unusual about a universe made of the same material appearing to be made out of that same material, but that does not make it one any more than it does the rocks. You can disagree, certainly, but I see this as another assumption that's unwarranted.

We are now venturing into the question of ‘does god exist’, as soon as we do this there are many loose end’s as we don’t yet know if universe begins and ends – thus emanates from something/somewhere – or if it is continually re-born – which is an infinity paradox! This is why I did not ask the above question.

In order for God to exist, I don't think we necessarily need a universe that began or will end. An infinite universe in some form could do as well. God is an ambiguous enough of a word I think we could get away with it.

Why does everything fit together with all the symmetry asymmetry and beauty of existence & like attract like etc. and why do co-incidences occur so – is it perhaps because there is a common unifier! For me it is an impossibility that it is not due to a super intellect!

That's beautiful, beautiful and subjective, which is something I will get back to in just a moment. Why do we perceive the nature of the universe as beautiful? Why are we in awe of what we are in awe of? Could it be that it is because this is the way the universe is and it's merely been encoded in us somehow due to that reason?

Also, have you ever noticed how many coincidences you don't have, how many there aren't? Have you ever wondered how long it took for all the coincidences in the whole world to fall together just the way they did or what's happening on an even larger scale? At every new age scientific enlightenment we think we're scientifically enlightened, but then 200 years pass and we all learn how wrong we were. The world's not flat, and quantum physics is a dawning science.

So, subjective/objective, this is important in order for me to be able to talk about what God is from my perspective, and this will allow clearer dialogue as you'll understand where I'm coming from. Subjectively, I don't believe in God. I don't have to. I know God is. My personal experience is that God is. But objectively I don't necessarily believe in God because I don't see any real evidence. I don't care so much about the objective, but I don't see any.

It could be argued that there are many people subjectively knowing God is, and therefore God is. But we could argue the same thing about our dreams. And some people would... I'm very comfortable subjectively experiencing God and not having any real faith in God's objective existence, although not having faith God doesn't exist either. That is where I am agnostic. But that doesn't stop me from loving God, because that's all subjective. I don't think there's a reason to justify the subjective experience of God with the objective, rational existence of God.

Dauer

[_Z_]

Dinosaurs are nothing like as dynamic as we are, or as dextrous & have not the same mental capacity, but yes there could be greater forms than human, I just can’t think of one. So lets leave this aside as I take your point – we should examine the notion of god without blinkered vision. He is however, at least what we are?

Being? This notion is a little vague as are the Buddhist ideas of mind, inner self and Buddha being. But how else can we define primary attributes?

What about the notion of everythingness, if we take infinity then say it is boundless, then it must have all things within ‘it’ otherwise it has not infinite potential & is limited. If one unites all opposites then they form into one, yet are drawn from the one originally. If ‘it’ is everything [consider the absolute and universal meaning of the term ‘it’ – it must be everything], then it has all that we are, all of nature & the universe generally X everything else one can possibly think of and what we cannot.

Is god the master of ‘it’? Or is he the juggler of law [via thought {of some kind}] or does he simply apply a single act, perhaps a thought which makes a primary event occur, then the rest follows by its own volition e.g. if he thought light & it came into being, then it would be infinite, that is to say that the principle of infinity would automatically come into being, which in turn would demand the existence of the principles of finite and infinitesimal that would ‘shape’ light accordingly hence quantum energy & singularity [as light is energy]. This is just an example to show how a single act of creation can induce everything else given infinite potential – just an idea!

‘Knowing the moment’

This is interesting, because if we had no memory then we would perhaps not know things or at least not recognise them. This is because our brains belong to the finite/quantum world and take time [as you pointed out] to compute. When in the spirit world this is not so, as the spirit has the capacity [or is of the nature of] ‘immediate knowing’, this is not a perception it is a becoming one with! If spirit was green water and it met bleu water, part of it would be turquoise therefore it knows a thing because it is part of that thing & vice-versa. If god has the nature or may utilise the nature [as we do our bodies] of ‘universal spirit’ then he would be ‘of all waters’ so to say, thus ‘know’ everything of the water!

There is a big difference between perceptive knowledge and knowing though oneness.

I don’t think my ‘assumption’ of oneness is unwarranted, I stick by the fundamental principle that ‘there is no such thing as absolute separateness’, thus there must be a common unifier that is the form of the principle. So we’ll agree to disagree on that one for now.

Hmm an infinite universe? Ok let’s work with that idea – sounds fun!

I see your point on coincidences – very good one too! I am thinking of it like a ‘magnetism of events’ that things come together according to where they began as unmanifest, like a gathering of strings of events that form into knots.

Ok its late now and I have to work tomorrow & that was not a very good explanation of coincidences! Speak again soon.



Z

[dauer]

He is however, at least what we are?

That's only true if God is a being in the sense that we are beings, rather than just a being in the sense that God is. I still find it anthropocentric to assume we are uniquely created in the image of a creator, and I think that's one of the things God being like us is linked to. I don't understand what makes humans so special that God must automatically have something like thought. Better, I think, would be to ask whether God is active or passive, because these are more organismically neutral words, and to build from there without making connections to the ways of mankind.

But how else can we define primary attributes?

That's a good question. To me, if we've defined the primary attributes, we've lost God and created an image, probably in our image somehow.

When in the spirit world this is not so

How do you know there is a spirit world, and how do you know what's going on inside your head when you're there? Our dreams don't necessarily come through as we've dreamt them. What makes this different?

I stick by the fundamental principle that ‘there is no such thing as absolute separateness’, thus there must be a common unifier that is the form of the principle. So we’ll agree to disagree on that one for now.

I agree it's probably best to agree to disagree, but could you explain what you mean by absolute separateness and what the basis is for the principle?

Dauer

[_Z_]

Hi again. Are you being overly concerned about anthropocentricity? Although I think you are right in the context that one should have an understanding separate to what we are as humans, like you say space is not all that human at least not physically – perhaps not spiritually! I have been trying to view god from a universal perspective and made many statements accordingly. Ok so we need to arrive at a beginning point? I often consider things beginning at ‘the simplest thing’ the blank sheet as it were, this is why I ask things like ‘if we take the universe away, what do we have’? A void, zero, a oneness? Where would you begin? I don’t mind I am open to suggestions; perhaps we have been trying to make to many points [esp. me lol] & need to take things step by step.



“To me, if we've defined the primary attributes, we've lost God and created an image, probably in our image somehow”.



Good point! How may we avoid this?



For the moment lets ignore the question of spirit worlds, the notion is vague at best unless one has direct experience & that could be illusory.



Ok so absolute separateness… well the basis for this is that after considering the idea for around fifteen years, it seams impossible to me that it is not so. Quantum energies do not have edges and may appear from nothing, if you discuss this with physicists they usually agree. The trouble is that when we debate ‘the existence of god’ then one may just go beyond where we know science has no answers and everything goes around in circles getting nowhere. Then there is the question of existence itself e.g. god does not exist physically yet can we have that which exists but is not physical? Not to mention the reality illusion Buddhist notion.



This is why I was looking for different perspectives of what people think god is rather than the question of weather or not he exists!



There are many sub debates to the vast scope of this subject, perhaps I was being to simplistic in asking and would do better to create separate posts? Thank you for your patience with me!



Z

[dauer]

Where would you begin?

That's probably just it. I wouldn't begin. I don't accept that God exists objectively. I know that God exists subjectively for me, but I don't accept that as valid evidence for the objective, for the empirical. I would just as well consider that God is a projection of the human psyche. In this case, God does exist. But it's all in our heads. I'm not, however, saying, that God is a projection of the human psyche. I don't know, and I don't like making assumptions about these things.

“To me, if we've defined the primary attributes, we've lost God and created an image, probably in our image somehow”.

Good point! How may we avoid this?

Can you define an indefinite? It's like taking a snapshot of something. Your snapshot is only going to be one perspective at one moment. Photos are good for sentimental value, but the real thing is far more valuable. I don't think you're ever going to develop your film into anything more than pictures.

Quantum energies do not have edges and may appear from nothing

I really think this is one of those things scientists know nothing about. And I don't mean quantum physics is nonsense. I think it's amazing stuff, and the best stuff we've got, but it's so new. It's like working off of one of those computers before the mac classic came out, or playing a game on the original gameboy. When you get around to trying gamecube, you realize how small your world has been. And I say this based on history. We always think we know everything when we reach a new peak. It makes us more comfortable. I'm comfortable with the ambiguity of admitting I don't know.

This is why I was looking for different perspectives of what people think god is rather than the question of weather or not he exists!

Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were trying to join together with other people and venture into this question together. And because we each make different assumptions about the world, that wasn't working. But I think you meant something else.

If this had began, "If we assume that God is x and y, then what can we say about God?" Then I would have been able to speak your language, because I have no problem interfacing that way. But if I'm speaking my language and you're speaking yours, there's going to be some confusion.

Ah well, it was a fun ride anyway.

Dauer

[_Z_]

Well I asked the question because people have ideas about what god is e.g. a creator. I would ask if people from various faiths believe god is universal omnipresent etc. we don’t have to prove these things, just have some kind of basic idea! It’s a bit of a ‘cop out’ to just say we have no idea but we are going to believe in him anyway. There are things we can ask to develop a philosophy of what god is, if not then people go around saying he is this or that without being questioned! A pagan could say that their gods are personifications of an indefinable spirit – like the ancient druids did, and one has no argument against this or any other kind of paganism! So do we leave it their & just say its ok to believe in whatever one wants without debate? Where would this attitude leave humanity, religion could fade away reverting to superstition and vague belief, indeed what’s the point of comparing ideas if it does not matter what one believes in?



Ok so we cannot define an indefinite – if that’s what god is – but we define infinity yet it is boundless and perhaps stateless.



I did want to join with people and ask questions and compare ideas, but if one approaches with the negative line, in avoidance of finding a basic philosophy, then we simply cannot arrive at any position beyond where we began – it just goes around in circles & I have had this debate many times over always arriving at nowhere – what’s the point?