What is this god of which you speak?

[juggernaut]

Because the essence of god incorporates everything and nothing. That's why it's not everything.

In essence, God is our limited way of envisioning all there is and all there is not on a physical plane with a physical body and a physical mind.

Why isn't this just garden variety human imagination?

 

[Feops]

When people talk about "God" I generally envision them referring to the mainstream notion of a distinctive being with its own individuality, morals, and ideals, etc. All the various texts and bibles seem to support this stance.

 

[erm]

When I'm in a theistic mood, one of two definitions usually comes to mind:-

Either, the ultimate mover, a 'thing' that is responsible for everything that occurs inside the universe. Essentially the cause of all the patterns one can observe in the universe. I usually do this to fill in a mental void for why things occur, since scientific definitions merely record patterns and create a cause and effect chain that becomes a circle (not that that can't be the fullest explanation possible).

The other, more common definition I use, is as a short term for the natural intelligence that occurs within the universe. I know a lot of people, especially philosophers, like to say that god is the consistency within the universe, the reason there is any intelligibility at all. However, I'm referring to the more common definition of intelligence, mainly that of humans, that seem to naturally occur through processes such as evolution. (Apparently there's reason to believe a lot more intelligence is forming and has already formed within the universe.) It seems, to me, that all this intelligence is attempting to head towards a singularity.

But, to me, God is a creative presence at work in the world. A force for goodness. A light in the void.

You see, I just call that 'goodness'.

Hmmm, I seem to be going in circles here. Why is 'everything' God? Why isn't 'everything' just everything?

Well, in most languages there's more than one word that essentially symbolize the same thing, right?

Because the essence of god incorporates everything and nothing. That's why it's not everything.

In essence, God is our limited way of envisioning all there is and all there is not on a physical plane with a physical body and a physical mind.

I find this definition of god, or something similar, is only outnumbered (possibly) by the average christian definition.

 

[juggernaut]

Well, in most languages there's more than one word that essentially symbolize the same thing, right?

Certainly. But if that's the case then aren't we all believers in god? Even the most vehement atheist has to concede everything exists because every thing does exist, it's in the definition. I just don't see where/how everything becomes synonymous with god in a truly meaningful way. This way of explaining things strikes me as doing something akin to simply deciding to call red green. We can call red crimson or cerise, but it doesn't seem right to call it green. Doing this with 'god' and 'everything' seems sneaky, or at least semantically disingenuous. Does integrity just go out the door when logic crashes the party?

 

[Little Linguist]

Our imagination can only extend to a certain degree, which is why I think it's beyond imagination...

And the fact that my concept of God is 'typical' doesn't prevent me from sharing it. I don't believe that because I want to be cool and different but because that's how I believe.

 

[juggernaut]

Our imagination can only extend to a certain degree, which is why I think it's beyond imagination...

And the fact that my concept of God is 'typical' doesn't prevent me from sharing it. I don't believe that because I want to be cool and different but because that's how I believe.

So is the old "greatest possible being", St. Anselm's ontological argument? I have to admit that argument is one of the few that is tough to beat, though Gaunilo's fool does a pretty good job. You don't think it's at all possible that this perception of limitation is just an instinctual drive to keep us moving perhaps? Something to keep us trucking along when we're faced with serious adversity, as our ancestors must have been? Is there any possibility that that might be what's going on?

I hope I don't seem to be giving you too hard a time, I am genuinely curious.

 

[Sentura]

Don't assume I'm making that mistake. The point is that there's still nothing there. If god is just existence, or the sum total of everything, the term itself has no independent meaning and is, therefore, essentially useless. This is why philosophers have such an easy time making short work of these kinds of explanations.

that is also why i largely don't use the term except in discussions where it is referred to

 

[erm]

Certainly. But if that's the case then aren't we all believers in god? Even the most vehement atheist has to concede everything exists because every thing does exist, it's in the definition. I just don't see where/how everything becomes synonymous with god in a truly meaningful way. This way of explaining things strikes me as doing something akin to simply deciding to call red green. It's seems sneaky, or at least semantically disingenuous. Does integrity just go out the door when logic crashes the party?

I assume at some point, god essentially meant the most powerful being. The most powerful being essentially being the most significant one, to humans at least. Because of this, some people change their definition of god to whatever they see as the most powerful/significant thing that they think actually exists.

Every definition I've encountered seemed to have personal significance as the lowest common denominator, so it makes sense.

 

[ENFJ_Catholic]

If you took the whole universe - including everything, and I mean everything, matter, energy, antimatter, everything in any dimension or timeframe and somehow managed to sum it all up (although that's really impossible) whether it be on the physical or another plane, that'd be God.

But it's not one thing - it's simply everything. And it's not a being (physical or otherwise). It just is. And interestingly enough if you look at all religious traditions, they basically say the same thing in different words.

God is simply a word denoted to the summation of all space, time, and matter and the lack of all three combined. It is and is not.

That's why you can't prove or disprove it.

I like the way you put that, Little Linguist. But I would say there's room for a personal understanding of God. It's not necessarily a pantheistic point of view to understand all creation under "His" control, as in under the natural laws in place. It depends on how one looks at it all.

And human imagination has its limitations. We humans do have limits whether accepted or unaccepted by us.

 

[Quinlan]

Well, in most languages there's more than one word that essentially symbolize the same thing, right?

God is a messy word though, it comes with all sorts of connotations that existence and everything don't. Isn't existence and everything clearer use of language, without all the hellfire and brimstone connotations?

 

[ADISCIPLE]

So I'm not exactly clear on what god designates here. Is this some form of the teleological argument? I'm having a little trouble finding the "god" in this passage. Is god in the stuff of life or is god the stuff of life? Is it purpose? If so, how do you know you're evaluating it correctly?

Also how do you know that our "disobedience" isn't a part of the order? In evolutionary terms, it seems obvious that this supposed disobedience has worked quite well for us.

Someone who believes in God, as myself, typically believe in intelligent design. I am proposing that the being that created the universe, its mark is in everything, because nothing would exist without it. Everythings existence, is part God, everything in its entirety is God. The rules apply, and order is in place.

I disagree that everything has worked out well for us, even in evolutionary terms. Knowledge is our disobedience, its alter-ego is confusion. The more knowledge we gain, the less we truly understand. I would fear the next stage of evolution would have even more of this problem, not solve it.

 

[erm]

God is a messy word though, it comes with all sorts of connotations that existence and everything don't. Isn't existence and everything clearer use of language, without all the hellfire and brimstone connotations?

I think certain other connotations go along with 'god'. Emotional connections and significance. So to call something not typically known as god, god, is to try to pass all those emotions and connections people have with the more typical concept of god, on to whatever they are switching the name to mean.

 

[Quinlan]

I think certain other connotations go along with 'god'. Emotional connections and significance. So to call something not typically known as god, god, is to try to pass all those emotions and connections people have with the more typical concept of god, on to whatever they are switching the name to mean.

Isn't it possible to feel emotional connections to 'everything' or 'existence'? they are already as significant as anything can be.

 

[erm]

Isn't it possible to feel emotional connections to 'everything' or 'existence'? they are already as significant as anything can be.

Yes, they just don't have the same background.

I imagine it's similar to how insults are purely descriptive, yet they have more emotional connections than other terms.

It sort of leads to extra description if you call, say, the universe 'god'. Makes it seem more mystical and whatnot, and expresses the speaker's feelings on the matter more clearly.

At least, it does for me.

'God' might contain a bit of extra pure description in it as well. At least, calling the universe 'god', makes me think the person who stated it does not believe in anthropomorphism.

 

[Friend]

Remember when you were a little kid and you first discovered a box of dominos in your grandma's cabinet? You took the dominos out and started stacking them on end until you made a huge line of dominos. Then when you were ready you pushed that first domino over so it would hit the next one, and the next one, and you would watch the chain reaction.
Picture each domino as a day in history. Each domino counts for a day and there are millions of them. According to the laws of physics and non-infinite regression, each movement among the physical realm requires a "mover" or "energy" to transfer energy. However it is unfathomable that the first domino, meaning the first day, was moved all by itself. But nothing existed before it in the physical realm, therefore the only explaination is supernatural, beyond physical, and an outside "mover" which tipped that first domino. History has called this "God".

 

[professor goodstain]

i think of it like this. Space is endless. It's sais that if you go in one direction into space, you'll return from the opposite direction. This is impossible. i believe one just keeps going in that same direction without end. How did all this 'stuff' contained within materialize. Somethins gotta be up with that.

 

[ENFJ_Catholic]

Remember when you were a little kid and you first discovered a box of dominos in your grandma's cabinet? You took the dominos out and started stacking them on end until you made a huge line of dominos. Then when you were ready you pushed that first domino over so it would hit the next one, and the next one, and you would watch the chain reaction.
Picture each domino as a day in history. Each domino counts for a day and there are millions of them. According to the laws of physics and non-infinite regression, each movement among the physical realm requires a "mover" or "energy" to transfer energy. However it is unfathomable that the first domino, meaning the first day, was moved all by itself. But nothing existed before it in the physical realm, therefore the only explaination is supernatural, beyond physical, and an outside "mover" which tipped that first domino. History has called this "God".

Welcome, Friend! A very good first post...welcome to the forum. :hi:

Your post was true to ENFJ form, including the delievery of the message; it explains in part what I believe, too. Thanks for sharing.

 

[ADISCIPLE]

Remember when you were a little kid and you first discovered a box of dominos in your grandma's cabinet? You took the dominos out and started stacking them on end until you made a huge line of dominos. Then when you were ready you pushed that first domino over so it would hit the next one, and the next one, and you would watch the chain reaction.
Picture each domino as a day in history. Each domino counts for a day and there are millions of them. According to the laws of physics and non-infinite regression, each movement among the physical realm requires a "mover" or "energy" to transfer energy. However it is unfathomable that the first domino, meaning the first day, was moved all by itself. But nothing existed before it in the physical realm, therefore the only explaination is supernatural, beyond physical, and an outside "mover" which tipped that first domino. History has called this "God".

Nice.

 

[juggernaut]

Actually, it was Aristotle. But, hey, close enough.

 

[Take Five]

Even if everyone had the same general understanding of God, which perhaps they do to some extent, we would not be able to translate the whole being into understandable language, or language at all for that matter. However, I think we can offer glimpses of God and convey our partial understandings limited by human potential.

I'm not a theologian or a guru, but here is my effort to convey what I understand about God, though there is no way I could do Justice with it.

First, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He exists outside of time and space, but is active in the universe, especially with humans.

God created the universe, in one way or another, with or without the big bang, with or without evolution. I happen to believe in both.
Because He exists outside of time and space, he has knowledge of the past, present, and future, even before it passes--here you see the futility of trying to explain Him.

God is also loving and benevolent. He is the true good.

At some point after the creation of the universe, human beings came into existence, which God purposefully created in His image and likeness. This does not mean God has arms and legs, as God is outside of space, but by looking at ourselves, we can achieve a glimpse of the identity of God. God is the Being who gave humans souls, which mimic God, and seek completeness by being in union with Him.

God plays an active role in the lives of people through various means because He created us for a purpose and wants us to choose to pursue union with Him.

This is a basic idea of the God of at least Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and perhaps other religions I am not aware of.

My understanding of God goes further than this and more in depth in regards to His relation with people, but all this is more specific to my religion, and may diverge from others' perception of Him. If you are interested I'd be happy to share more details.