What is God?

[AlecBGreen]

It seems to me that a large stumbling block in our many discussions here on the RT forum has to do with the question of "is there or isnt there a God?" (no s**t Sherlock, eh?) But lets take a step back. Id like to ask all the believers here what their concept of God is. Many of us are mocked by nonbelievers for believing in a "sky daddy" "magic fairy" etc etc. That is not how I think of God at all! To me, God is the very firmament of reality, that which upholds everything and makes existence possible. It is timeless, existing into the realm where time is irrelevant (superdimensional so to speak). It is the 'Most High' in every sense, stretching beyond all our comprehension in every direction. Like a dog trying to deciper Shakespeare, our brains are simply not hardwired to understand the length and bredth and width of God. Thats why its so hard for me to understand that some people deny Gods existance. God, in one sense, IS existence.

So, what do you think God is?

Nonbelievers: feel free to jump in whenever the chance presents itself :)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. Let me browse through my mental database of fictional beings.

Gulliver, Green Lantern, Grand Moff Tarkin... ah, God.

"Sentient being thought to have deliberately triggered the existence of all physical reality."

Yep, I think that covers it.

[omega minimo]

2. Why not join the discussion instead of start a new one?

:evilfrown:

[The_Commonist]

3. I happen to be one of those mocking unbelievers...

...and I have typed the words "sky daddy" more times than I care to admit!

That being said... I pretty much agree with your assessment.

The universe is SO much weirder than any of us can possibly imagine.
Than any of us is equipped to completely understand.
I spend way too much time pondering that.
Does that mean I "believe" in "God"?
No, I don't.
For me, and I imagine for many, the problem is with those who "believe" that the "Bible" is the unerring word of YHVH or whatever, and take it all too literally. When it serves their purposes. And then ignore the inconvenient parts. That's what I mock. And I probably shouldn't.

Do I believe that "God" is the underlying functionality of and, shall we say, the unknowable purpose for existence? Sure, if that's the word we want to agree to use as a working definition. It's just that it's a loaded word. Especially when one group or another tries to "own" it, and denies that others may use a different definition...

[tama]

7. Thanks

Excellent contribution, the Christian ideology of monopoly, eternal patent right and intellectual property over "God", "Salvation", "Truth" etc. definately deserves strong criticism - as do all monopolistic ideologies of intellectual property.

As for the Great Mystery or "Wakan Tanka" as the Lakota name it, I like to think that we humans and all life are so weird that with our participatory creativity we make it even weirder... :)

[iris27]

29. Making life weirder...

That reminds me of a line I appreciate from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide...":

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

[tama]

36. Also in Gödel, Escher, Bach

there's a story about "a phonograph that destroys itself by playing a record titled "I Cannot Be Played on Record Player X" (this being an analogy to Gödel's incompleteness theorem)".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

And recently a well known Danish scientist whose name now escapes me predicted in a scientific publication that got a lot of attention that the Higg's boson ("God particle") cannot be measured as the Universe refuses to "instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable" by some sort of wierd backward causation which causes malfunction in every measurement attempt. I believe essential part of this seriously scientific joke was leaving readers wondering is he serious or joking... :)

[tama]

4. A trick of language?

An object of thought; a noun, not a verb.

That is what the question implies by it's formulation.

One could also ask 'How is Being?".

One answer among all possible answers to the latter question: discussing the meaning of the word "God". :)

[darkstar3]

11. Do you want to take a stab at defining reality? n/t

[tama]

16. Errr

When taking a stab at defining reality, reality stabs the definer in the back?

[darkstar3]

17. That may be true,

but mainly I was just wondering if you knew what reality was...

We're really here, man. I know it seems like some crazy dream, but we really are here.

[tama]

22. Yeah

And I really do believe in the saying "There is nothing as important than gardening and even that is not that important…" so call me a believer. :)

Discussing world views is sort of gardening, gardening of thoughts and thinking patterns, sort of.

[tama]

24. dooble poost n/t

[The_Commonist]

32. I just read that as "doobie post"

Which is appropriate, considering what I was just doing in the garden...

[wtbymark]

23. Zing! lol

reality would be the perceptions of the physical and mental poles of actual entities of reality in concrescence with each other, which also creates time

[tama]

28. Maybe so

but trying to really understand quantum measurement problem and decoherence will drive you bonkers. Not that there is anything wrong being bonkers... :)

[wtbymark]

5. what you've descibed are 'actual entities of reality'

quantum physicists are trying to prove it as 'zero point energy', 'dark matter' etc.
Allthough, Alfred North Whitehead did believe in god, his system of the concrescence of actual entities of reality works just fine and dandy without a god. And, well, it wouldn't be the 'most high', more like, so basic you cannot comprehend it. If it doesn't work in the macro as well as the micro, there is flawed logic.

[tama]

9. What, or how is mathematics? n/t

[wtbymark]

12. did I mention math? No, physics slightly, mostly cosmology

[tama]

19. No you didn't

That's why I asked. You mentioned quantum theory which is mathematical physics. The mystery of mathematical physics is "what and how is mathematics".

Let me put it this way: the mathematical physics of QT (etc) works empirically. Interpretations of QT into natural languages lead to great confusion and sayings like "no one really understands QT" (Feynman). What's the deal here?

[wtbymark]

21. I was just eluding to the fact that this is how QP's are describing it

I learned this in a purely metaphysical fashion studying the cosmology and metaphysical theories of Whitehead.

[Chemisse]

6. I think 'god' is the essence of the universe

Pretty much as you describe.

The reason I am an atheist though is because most people define 'god' differently, as a conscious, observing entity who thinks and decides and directs our lives.

It may be that simple minds can only comprehend this underlying force by personifying it, but I find it offensive that I am expected to take such fantasies seriously.

[laconicsax]

8. A word used to describe a number of fictional entities.

Someone else once wrote in a http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_religion.html">letter:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

[tama]

10. How about this definition:

Organism or entity larger and inclusive of humans (a group of / all humans / life on Earth /etc.) - like a human being is god to all the cells in human organism.

According to that definition also corporations, states, ecosystems etc. are gods. Mind you, I have no problem calling also those kinds of gods 'fictional'... ;)

[laconicsax]

20. The broader you make the definition, the less meaning the word carries.

You can define "god" however you want.

[tama]

26. Thanks

Maybe it would be better if the word "god" would carrie less meaning... :)

[ironbark]

13. From a Kelpie reading Hamlet…

Your definitions and descriptions remind me of those of the Baha’i-

“He verily is exalted above the understanding of anyone besides Himself, and sanctified beyond the comprehension of all else save Him”

“The purport of this is that God is almighty, but His greatness cannot be brought within the grasp of human limitation. We cannot limit God to a boundary. Man is limited, but the world of Divinity is unlimited. Prescribing limitation to God is human ignorance. God is the Ancient, the Almighty; His attributes are infinite. He is God because His light, His sovereignty, is infinite.”
(`Abdu'l-Baha:)

Hope your thread gets something other than the usual undergrad flame ;-)

[jody]

14. God is the preternatural answer to questions that cannot be answered by science.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. With your definition of 'God', does that then alter your behaviour in any way?

Having defined 'God' as 'existence', 'the Most High', 'reality' or similar, does using the word 'God' at certain times then influence your decisions, comapred to using 'existence', 'reality' and so on where appropriate? How is this 'God' relevant?

[tama]

30. If I may,

open or non-definition of "God" tends to lead to less fighting than strict and narrow definitions, especially when talking with people who use the word in question - and those people are also relevant.

[AlecBGreen]

54. yes, to me there is a difference

both in how I percieve God and existence and how my beliefs/perceptions affect my decisions.

God is existence (i.e. the physical form of the universe) AND the underlying foundation, that which makes it possible. He is the tabletop AND the legs so to speak. We see and use the tabletop but it requires legs to make it function, to support it. Without legs, it isnt a table. Likewise, without that underlying support, without God, there is no possibility of reality, of existence.

I like the old comparison of a potter and a vessel. God is the potter, the creator, and creation (& our earth) is the vessel. We have been given this gift and I think there are conditions on our use of it. My belief in God leads to me believe that we have been entrusted with the earth. We have the right to use it to support ourselves but we must always remember who the owner is. If someone lends you the use of something, you better make sure you take good care of it. That is at odds with believers who feel they have been GIVEN the earth. When something is given to you, its yours and you can do with it what you will. Hence the present condition of our planet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. That seems a very different view of 'God' from in the OP

Now, you seem to be attributing conscious thought to 'God', and actions like 'creating'. And the 'conditions of use' for earth - how would you going about finding out what they are? How could you contact this 'God'?

[AlecBGreen]

65. not different, just poorly explained

the 'consciousness' of God is one Its great mysteries. All I can say with certainty is that God is completely self-aware.

And the 'conditions of use' for earth - how would you going about finding out what they are?

The earth belongs to that which created it i.e. God. Exodus 19:5 "...for all the earth is mine." We have awoken on this planet and found all sorts of goodies like food and fresh water and trees and everything and is not wrong to use them. However we must remember that the earth doesnt BELONG to us, we have been granted the right to use it. We borrow it from our children..

How could you contact this 'God'? He has a big red phone on his desk, just for me :) Prayer and meditation. Again, dont ask me how it works but in my experience it has done wonders for me.

[Lost-in-FL]

18. Would anything change if there was or not a god? nt

[AlecBGreen]

55. yes!

EVERYTHING changes! I will start with basic assumptions that I have (for the sake of brevity, ignoring for now the reasons why I believe them).

Two notes: 1) while I do not think God has a sex, I will use personal pronouns because, to me, He has qualities that seem humanlike. "It" sounds nonliving 2) Do not get caught up with my use of emotional words like "know" "seek" "undestand" "love" etc. These words are mere approximations of the truth.

1) God exists
2) God created all the visible universe (and probably all those others ones we cant see yet :) )
3) God created humanity "in His image" as sentient beings
4) God desires us to know Him, to become awake, to ponder the mysteries of creation, to seek His will
5) God seeks to comfort us with knowledge of His presence and an understanding of His nature, His will, and His love for us

So a belief in God changes everything. If there is a God, that opens up a ton of questions! Why did God create the universe and put us in it? Does God know about us? Does God have an interest in us? (again, a human word that tries to convey, poorly, the reality of the situation) Does God 'have a plan'? And on and on, down the rabbit hole we go. So, to answer your question, yes it changes things for me.

[moobu2]

25. I prefer Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach's definition that God is a projection of ourselves

God is nothing else than man: he is, so to speak, the outward projection of man's inward nature - Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach (1804 – 1871)

[tama]

31. That's a very interesting point of view

and especially so in a (dynamic) holografic context.

If the big picture is reflected in the small picture and vice versa - and this picture also satisfies scientific empirical and other criteria so it remains non-falsified theory - and assuming it's good or fun to play "better sound than sorry", then how would one like to reflect the big picture and vice versa?

[immoderate]

92. I was going to post: God is an idealized projection of self.

But old Ludwig beat me to it. You too of course.

The OP tends to project magnanimity. "It's everything, baby!" But it doesn't clarify anything about god.

--imm

[iris27]

27. Any one of a collection of supposed beings with supernatural powers, belief in whom

humanity has found beneficial throughout the centuries, in order to alleviate existential angst.

Usually when speaking with someone who does believe, I try to ascertain their definition and work from there.

I find wonder in the vastness of the universe. I believe there are many, many things we do not yet understand, and that some of these things we may never understand. But I do not find it necessary to wrap up all the things I don't understand and label the sum total "God".

[beam me up scottie]

33. I cannot deny the existence of something that cannot be defined.

Obviously I can't believe in "it" either.

[tama]

34. Conceptual thinking

Let's suppose you were able to shut down conceptual thinking - the "inner dialogue" - for a moment while awake (e.g. by meditating skillfully).

The world "as is" would not end, of course, nor sensing. But there would be no concepts, definitions, "it", "me", etc.

Conceptually, do you deny or believe in (possibility of) this experience that cannot be defined as the experience IS lack of conceptual thinking (projected over experience as such)?

[beam me up scottie]

35. I do meditate, what does that have to do with your inability to define god?

You define it and then I'll decide whether or not I believe in it.

Lack of belief is the null hypothesis.

[tama]

37. Oh,

I have no such inability. I can define god(s) in many ways. :)

I was aiming elsewhere, the "spiritual experience" of which there is plenty of empirical evidence, but if defined (by those having that experience) is most usually defined as undefinable or described through vague poetic means.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Thank you for making my point.

Skeptics are repeatedly asked to believe in all kinds of vague nonsense and we get a bad rap for not nodding, smiling and going along with it.

[tama]

39. Maybe the point was

that experiences are experienced regardless of how they are defined, interpreted, denied, believed etc. in conceptual thinking.

As a skeptic myself, I cannot really doubt that the phenomenological (non-conceptual) reality is primary to the conceptual theories derived from it. And in awe I wonder the mental gymnastics of supporters of eliminative materialism for their attempt to do so.

[darkstar3]

41. Dear tama:

You are no skeptic. You may doubt the existence of a deity or an afterlife, but you are certainly no skeptic, not when you are willing to go so far to defend ideas about supernatural phenomena that have no suitable proof.

As for your statement about how "experiences are experienced," I say, "not necessarily." You see, the human brain is a very strange thing. It can make us believe that we see something with our own eyes when it really isn't there.

Experience is subjective. Reality is not. Thus the root word, "real".

[tama]

43. Oh,

but the notion of "objective" reality is very subjective, as subject and object is codependent linguistic category. My skeptical advice to fellow skeptic is to be more skeptical of the tricks that English language can do to your (unskeptical) notions about real.

And as for my rigorous skepticism, naturally it includes strong skepticism about your authority to define who is a skeptic and who is not. Or any authoritarian or in-group definition of skepticism that my own skeptical thinking cannot accept as valid truth.

And when experiencing skeptical doubts about my own skepticism, I'm definitely a skeptic! :)

[ironbark]

49. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated

into whatever category is designated.

When I first landed here I made mention of Islam’s contribution to civilisation…not realising that this made me a Moslem. In discussions immediately following I refused to take an exclusively literal reading of a scripture… which rendered me (if not a Moslem) then at least an evasive Theist. Foolishly I have attempted to maintain the delusion that I am an Agnostic operating on the mug punters calculation of probability. Alas, no, I must be an atheist...it has been ordained...I have been told.

Your scepticism as to who is authorised to determine and define scepticism is misplaced and distorted by your subjective misreading of objective reality. Your options are binary, your answers are already known because someone else wrote them, your palm has collapsed, your carpet has died, your cat keeps doing poo, the only thing that will keep you sane, is talking to your shoe….come over to the Atheist side of the force Tama…everyone here is happy and certain and certainly happy.

;-)

[tama]

61. Dear shoe

shiny polish there, nice shoe!

[iris27]

71. Most agnostics are also atheists; a few agnostics are theists.

Agnosticism is a position on knowledge of the supernatural...do you think it is possible to possess definitive knowledge about X claim (gnostic), or do you think this is not possible (agnostic)?

Atheism is a position on belief in the existence of a deity. Belief in a deity is theism; lacking this belief is atheism.

I am an agnostic atheist. I believe that anyone making a definitive statement about things we cannot currently measure or observe is just hazarding a guess, no matter how strongly they believe it - there is simply no way to know for certain. I think some guesses are more grounded in our current knowledge and are closer to the truth than others...like the guys who had the "plum pudding" model of the atom when other people still believed in humours. But there's always the out-of-left field possibility that Star Trek's Q comes to Earth posing as Xenu or something and proves everybody wrong.

So are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

[ironbark]

75. First thing Monday morning I’m a Satanist.

If I get a large coffee by 9.30am become a Hard Atheist.

If you pat me on the back at about noon and console- “There there, it will be alright” I will mellow to agnostic atheism.

If traffic is good on the way home I am an agnostic theist.

By 5.30pm…when I stand in the fernery amidst the orchids and lilliums, with a garden hose in one hand and a Cointreau, ice and mineral water in the other and the dog at my feet…then God is in Her glorious heaven and alls well with the world.

I admire the certainty and consistency seemingly possessed by others…but reality is…I fluctuate ;-)

If pressed to pick a prevailing mode I would go with agnostic mug punter rather than agnostic theist.
That is, while I do not believe god can be proven/disproven or fully known/comprehended, I believe there is sufficient historical evidence to consider god highly probable.
I hold that between “just hazarding a guess” (faith?) and “ way to know for certain” (science?) there is the calculation of probability. Perhaps the nearest analogy would be a court room in which forensic proof may not be available but sufficient evidence of involvement is there for a jury to convict. While there is no smoking gun or finger prints for god…I believe a convincing case can be presented for Her being there and involved in history.

When an agnostic mug punter is confronted with a horse called Xenu (Out of Q?) all the usual considerations regarding ‘form’, ‘conditions’ and ‘track record’ are made as well as a good look at the trainer, stable and owner. Having done so and enjoyed the laugh…I wouldn’t bet on it even using your money ;-)

[omega minimo]

88. "I made mention of Islam’s contribution to civilisation…not realising that this made me a Moslem"

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

74. Nice looking word salad you've made there.

but there's a problem:

but the notion of "objective" reality is very subjective,

If there can be no objective reality, you've just ventured into solipsism.

[tama]

83. Not necessarily

and not at all. Subjectivity (e.g. solipsism) OR objectivity is a false dichotomy, as these co-dependent categories are defined by each other.

There are languages and patterns of thought that do not require the subject-object -division and reification of experiencing into nouns, e.g. sentences/expressions consisting of a-personal verbs only.

The interpretational "paradoxes" of quantum theory and measurement problem can be explained as following from the attempt to interprete quantum processes in the confines of the subject-object -dichotomy. Use of expressions like "observables" instead of 'objects' by scientists when speaking about quantum physics is an attempt to avoid the linguistic trap of subject-object -dichotomy.

[omega minimo]

87. "If there can be no objective reality, you've just ventured into solipsism."

If there can be no objective reality, you've just ventured into quantum soup.

[beam me up scottie]

42. In other words, shit happens whether it happens or not.

The real display of mental gymnastics are your cryptic hand wavium references to magical experiences and your belief that such wooery should be enough to convince those you call "supporters of eliminative materialism".

Fail.

[tama]

44. Are you?

A supporter of eliminative materialism or skeptical of eliminative materialism?

I'm not making any claims in either direction, just asking now, since I was just discussing ideas and you seem to take them personally.

And rigorous skeptical thinking would not make any assumptions about my intentions to convince anyone. Sharing and discussing thoughts by no means implies intention to convince somebody about something. If sharing and discussing mere thoughts somehow threatens your convictions - just asking, not assuming - could you please state those convictions clearly enough so I can try not to offend them to the best of my ability.

[beam me up scottie]

46. I asked for a definition of god, you failed to provide one. (that was actually the topic at hand)

You threw up a pretty new-age smokescreen, but, as usual, there's no fire at the heart of woo.

There's nothing there at all.

[tama]

47. No you didn't

You wrote: "I cannot deny the existence of something that cannot be defined. Obviously I can't believe in "it" either."

That is not a question but an attempt at philosophy or woo woo logic.

Instead of taking responsibility to respond to thoughts provoked by that declaration, you are having an argument with some fictious imaginary being that you imagine that you asked a question (that you didn't), that you imagine that throws up imaginary "pretty new age smoke green" - over imaginary what?.

Your imaginary friend - or enemy? - is not really present in this discussion happening in reality except of course in your imagination.

But no need to worry, those kinds of imagined images are quite common feature of reality. You make up an customary mental image and instead of staying open and observant, project that accustomed mental image over what really is happening. You are having an argument with straw man reality of your own creation.

***

So let's try a magical trick, I'll make a magical prediction where the magic is that it is a win-win prediction:

The magical prediction:
Your next reply continues fighting against your imaginary fiend instead of returning back to reality and being present.

The win win:
If your next reply shows signs of being present in reality and proves the magical prediction wrong, the magic was that it was a self-cancelling prediction deviced at bring you back to reality, or at least a bit closer.

[beam me up scottie]

64. It's okay, I understand, you has mystic frens.

How fun!!1! I find it both fascinating and amusing that people believe in fairies, "greys" and other assorted woo.

Until they presume to have some special secret knowledge about reality, that is.


Let's go over this again:

1) The op asked "What is God?"

2) So far, no one has (ever) been able to define him/her/it(s).

3) In your post #37, you claimed that you could: "I have no such inability. I can define god(s) in many ways."

4) You were either unable or unwilling to prove your claim and horked up this absolutely incomprehensible verbal hairball instead:

"I was aiming elsewhere, the "spiritual experience" of which there is plenty of empirical evidence, but if defined (by those having that experience) is most usually defined as undefinable or described through vague poetic means."

:wtf:

...the "spiritual experience" of which there is plenty of empirical evidence

WHAT empirical evidence??? Either you can produce it or not, which is it?

but if defined (by those having that experience) is most usually defined as undefinable or described through vague poetic means.

Again, :wtf:


I went to the gym today, I spent an hour in yoga class and two more working out.

See how easy that was? I defined and described my experience and can provide proof that it actually happened.

Now it's your turn, go for your own "win win" and back up your claims.

Where is your empirical evidence?

[tama]

73. I was right, too bad n/t

[beam me up scottie]

77. So you can't back up your claims.

Too bad, you could have earned some credibility.

[tama]

81. I'm not making claims

so there's nothing to back up. Nor am I interested in earning credibility.

There is a claim - and often dogmatic belief of the pseudosceptic cult (that use the expression "woo-woo" awful lot) - that mental processes reduce to brain neurology. But not even physical scientific theory to back it up.

[omega minimo]

86. couldn't do it, could she?

:shrug: she dances with her strawmonster.

[iris27]

79. "Mystical frens" made me think of...

[beam me up scottie]

80. LOL!

Or this one:

[omega minimo]

89. In yoga, did you do the "Fire At The Heart of Woo" pose?

[ironbark]

101. Prevented by furball

[omega minimo]

103. Downward Facing God?

Son Salutations?



GREAT photo. :toast:

[immoderate]

93. I just participated in eliminative materialism.

Eliminated a lot of material. You might say I do that religiously. It felt good.

--imm

[omega minimo]

85. "we get a bad rap for not nodding, smiling and going along with it. "

on the contrary, some of you get a bad rap for snarling, sneering and slamming down on it.


Or maybe you don't mean on DU, because it's certainly not true here that "Skeptics are repeatedly asked to believe in all kinds of vague nonsense and we get a bad rap for not nodding, smiling and going along with it."

[ZombieHorde]

40. Is your God self aware? nt

[AlecBGreen]

50. yes

this is also another big stumbling block for many people. There are I think many people who might believe in God but think It is impersonal, removed from our daily lives, etc. But to me this isnt hard to believe. We humans are just large collections of chemical soup held in little packets of fat with all kinds of chemicals running here and there, electrical impulses and chemical concentration gradients, yet somehow we have self-awareness. I dont think its too big a stretch to say that all of existence is interconnected and thus, somehow, aware of itself. It goes beyond my comprehension but I believe God is self-aware. This is what I think Genesis meant when it said we are made in Gods image. We are little versions.

[ZombieHorde]

68. Do you think inanimate objects, such as pillows and coffee mugs, are self aware? nt

[AlecBGreen]

70. kind of but not in a way I can explain well

Ill take a shot though.

Inanimate objects like pillows or coffee mugs are self-aware in only one sense: they are solid objects composed of chemically bonded atoms. Imagine a small change in one of its atoms - an electron gained or lost. That incident will cause a change in all the atoms surrounding and bonded to that atom, which will in turn affect the ones they are bonded to etc. Thus the proof of that one first incident (such as a minor change in charge) will be carried to every other atom in that object. Thus information is shared throughout a single object through the connection of its many parts. I dont know if you could call that self-awareness, and you certainly couldnt compare it to human self-awareness. The object cant 'reflect' upon what has just happened. It just reacts, physically (ie responding to the simple laws of physics). So would you call that self-awareness? I guess I wouldnt. So then the answer to your question is no, coffe mugs and pillows arent self aware.

[Odin2005]

45. Whatever someone wants it to be.

"God" is used as a label for so many different concepts that it is meaningless.

When someone having a mystical experience uses the "god" label to describe it that person is merely conforming to societal convention, letting language dictate our experience. Thus IMO religious belief degrades such experiences.

[tama]

48. Well said.

And on the other hand, when someone with mystical experience conforms to societal convention and describes the experience as "I experienced Union with God, God really is Love!" or something similar, then it can be poor taste to degrade that experience by the societal convention of arguing against the word "God".

But when someone with mystical experience starts believing he's a prophet and creates a religious cult to worship him and only him and only his mystical experience instead of their own experience, that is really degrading.

[AlecBGreen]

56. oh no! not meaningless at all

The word GOD evokes many strong emotions and our understanding of the word and its meaning is very important for many reasons, not least of which people kill each other over it.

LOVE is also a word for 'so many different concepts' but no one would argue that love is meaningless. Quite the opposite; it has countless meanings.

I love that dress!
I love you! (child to a puppy)
I love you! (two teenagers)
I love you! (a man to his wife of 55 years)

Same word, similar meanings but yet VERY different levels of meaning.

When someone having a mystical experience uses the "god" label to describe it that person is merely conforming to societal convention, letting language dictate our experience. Thus IMO religious belief degrades such experiences.

Let me share one such experience with you. I was hiking with friends in the mountains of China. I was awestruck by the beauty of my surroundings and the physical exertion left me exhausted yet euphoric. As I was walking I remembered a verse from Pauls letter to the believers at Corinth: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." This belief did not degrade my experience, but rather heightened it. I began to see each part of my surroundings as a wake-up call to dig deeper, to ponder creation, to seek God. So no, in this instance my belief didnt degrade anything.

[meeshrox]

94. What you experienced was a lack of oxygen from thinner air...

due to altitude.

This is the issue I have with people trying to use god to explain natural phenomenon. If someone prayed for rain and stuck their hand out the window and it rained...you really should just think that 'it sometimes rains'. (*short prayer: thanks be to Mr. Maher for your awesome film!)

For full disclosure, I'm an atheist butting in...

[AlecBGreen]

51. lots of good, thoughtful replies. thanks everyone!

I teach high school freshmen so its nice to see some maturity in my life from time to time :7

[trotsky]

52. Needless multiplication of entities that add no explanatory value.

That's what gods are.

You say yours "upholds everything and makes existence possible" - OK, then what upholds your god and makes ITS existence possible? I would imagine your reasoning is something like, the universe is way too complex and immense to have just come about on its own, so therefore there must be an even MORE complex and immense being who poofed it into existence. The flaw, of course, is not applying the same standards to your god that you did to the universe.

[AlecBGreen]

53. a logical question

"what upholds your god and makes ITS existence possible?"

Nothing. By my understanding (and subsequent definition) of God, It is the deepest foundation. It has nothing supporting it. It is that which upon all existence rests. Its is both timeless (outside of time, unbound by it) and yet the creator of and regulator of time. I know Im doing a poor job of articulating so feel free to chime in if Im being unclear.

One visualization I can liken God to is like a 3d fractal. We can zoom in infinitely, never reaching the 'smallest' part. We can zoom out forever, never seeing the whole. God, in this instance, IS the fractal. It is that which can be viewed smaller and smaller and smaller and... I have a link (http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html) that IIRC shows what Im talking about. I cant double check now b/c Im at work and our filter thinks this is website is too dangerous.

Hope this helps. Like I said, Im not really good at articulating this stuff. Practice makes perfect I guess.

[trotsky]

57. Well the issue is not really a problem of understanding what you're saying.

It's understanding why you have decided your god can possess these properties (timeless, nothing supporting it, etc.) but the universe itself cannot. It would seem to be a totally arbitrary declaration.

[AlecBGreen]

58. no, not arbitrary

to me its logical. action --> reaction. cause --> effect. God is the cause, the action, reality and the universe is the effect. I dont think things spontaneously happen. I know quantum mechanics is learning some surprising things along these lines, but as I understand it, everything must have a cause EXCEPT that which is the root, that which does the 'causing.' Whatever that is, thats what I call God. Thats my definion anyway. Does this make sense or should I rearticulate it?

edit to add: Like the formation of the universe. There MUST have been a beginning, so what caused the beginning? What caused the transition from "nothingness" to "something" ? Whatever force that is, I call God. Whatever predated existence, I call God. Thats how I try to conceptualize it.

[trotsky]

59. I see where your thought process is failing.

as I understand it, everything must have a cause

No, this is not the case. That's actually been a finding of quantum mechanics - particle/anti-particle pairs pop in and out of existence throughout the universe, totally uncaused. There is no need to have a "root cause." So your reasoning for why a god is needed is invalid.

There MUST have been a beginning, so what caused the beginning?

"Beginning" only makes sense within a timeline. One of the properties of our universe is time itself, so it's really a nonsensical question to ponder what happened before the big bang. It's akin to asking what lies north of the North Pole.

[AlecBGreen]

60. excellent points

for the particle creation, spontaneous as it seems, I think there must be some unseen force that we havent identified that does it. Just like it took 1000s of years to understand the root causes of earthquakes, volcanoes, mountains, etc I think it will take some more time before we find a cause for this apparently random creation. Of course I have no proof but it is just my hypothesis.

"Beginning" only makes sense within a timeline. One of the properties of our universe is time itself, so it's really a nonsensical question to ponder what happened before the big bang. It's akin to asking what lies north of the North Pole.

I agree 100% (edit to add) but that doesnt stop me from wondering what caused the transition from no-time-nothingness to in-time-something

[Jim__]

66. Some points about time.

You're right to ask the question: what caused the transition from no-time-nothingness to in-time-something

According to my reading, there was not necessarily a transition form no-time-nothingness to in-time-something. Scientific American had an article on this in 2004. The abstract of the article can be read, but the article itself has to be purchased. From the abstract:

Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology.

Here is a link to a philosophical article about time; philosophy that also discusses the science. At the end of the article there are links that answer some questions. An excerpt (from topic 4b in the article):

The Big Bang theory is a theory of how our universe evolved, how it expanded and cooled from this beginning. This beginning process is called the “Big Bang” and the expansion and cooling is continuing today. Atoms are not expanding; our solar system is not expanding; even the cluster of galaxies to which the Milky Way belongs is not expanding. But most every galaxy cluster is moving away from the others. It is as if the clusters are exploding away from each other, and in the future they will be very much farther away from each other. Now, consider the past instead of the future. At any earlier moment the universe was more compact. Projecting to earlier and earlier times, and assuming that gravitation is the main force at work, the astronomers now conclude that 13.7 billion years ago (which happens to be three times the age of our planet) the universe was in a state of nearly zero size and infinite density. Because all substances cool when they expand, physicists believe the universe itself must have been cooling down over the last 13.7 billion years, and so it begin expanding when it was extremely hot. At present the average temperature of space in all very large regions has cooled to 2.7 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. Space is presently expanding at a rate of 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec.

As far as we knew back in the 20th century, the entire universe was created in the Big Bang, and time itself came into existence “at that time.” So, the day of the Big Bang was a day without a yesterday. With the appearance of the new theories of quantum gravity and the cosmic landscape in the 21st century, the question has been resurrected as legitimate.

In the literature in both physics and philosophy, descriptions of the Big Bang often assume that a first event is also a first instant of time and that spacetime did not exist outside the Big Bang. This intimate linking of a first event with a first time is a philosophical move, not something demanded by the science. It is not even clear that it is correct to call the Big Bang an event. The Big Bang “event” is a singularity without space coordinates, but events normally must have space coordinates. One response to this problem is to alter the definition of “event” to allow the Big Bang to be an event. Another response, from James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, is to consider the past cosmic time-interval to be open rather than closed at t = 0. Looking back to the Big Bang is then like following the positive real numbers back to ever smaller positive numbers without ever reaching a smallest positive one. If Hartle and Hawking are correct that time is actually like this, then the universe had no beginning event. But in order to simplify the discussion ahead, this article will speak of “the” Big Bang event as if it were a single origin event.

There are serious difficulties in defending the Big Bang theory’s implications about the universe’s beginning and its future. Classical Big Bang theory is based on the assumption that the universal expansion of clusters of galaxies can be projected all the way back. Yet physicists agree that the projection must fail in the Planck era, that is, for all times less than 10-43 seconds after “the” Big Bang event. Therefore, current science cannot speak with confidence about the nature of time within the Planck era. If a theory of quantum gravity does get confirmed, it should provide information about this Planck era, and it may even allow physicists to answer the question, “What caused the Big Bang?”

[AlecBGreen]

69. “What caused the Big Bang?”

I have two competing hypotheses: #1) the state of the universe @ the moment of the Big Bang was more or less infinite mass in an infinitely small point. This is similar to the conditions @ the singularity point of a black hole. Perhaps our Universe is but one of many that have popped out the tail end of black-hole-like phenomena in other universes/dimensions. #2) John McCain won the 2008 presidential election in a parallel universe and the simultaneous facepalm of half the United States and the rest of the world caused a split in space-time creating a Universe (ours) where that might never happen. Just a few of the many possibilities.

Sorry to go off on a tanget but I love talking Astronomy. The following is a Q&A on the Cornell website where lay people can ask questions of PhDs in astrophysics. Its great!


From: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387

How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation?
Some sources indicate that the big bang caused an expansion which traveled faster than the speed of light. How can this be?

You ask a good question, one whose answer lies in the subtle difference between expansion that is faster than the speed of light and the propagation of information that is faster than the speed of light. The latter is forbidden by fundamental physical laws, but the former is allowed; that is, as long as you are not transmitting any information (like a light pulse), you can make something happen at a speed that is faster than that of light. The expansion of the Universe is a "growth" of the spacetime itself; this spacetime may move faster than the speed of light relative to some other location, as long as the two locations can't communicate with each other (or, in terms of light rays, these two parts of the Universe can't see each other). According to the theory of inflation, the Universe grew by a factor of 10 to the sixtieth power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so the "edges" of the Universe were expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light; however, as long as those edges can't see each other (which is what we always assume), there is no physical law that forbids it.

November 2002, Kristine Spekkens

[ironbark]

76. The joined together then clove usunder 'Big Bang'?

“Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together , before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”

Quran, Hameed, Surah 21 verse 30.

I love astronomy and modern science.

;-)

[meeshrox]

96. "Sorry to go off on a tanget but I love talking Astronomy."

I just threw up a little in my mouth...

Your "causation" for the Big Bang is really just a description of what the prevailing knowledge is.

More off topic, there are an infinite number of parallel universes in which there are an infinite number of outcomes from an infinite number of events.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

Didn't I just blow your mind? Didn't I?

I <3 Michio Kaku! :loveya:

I'm really not badgering you here, just trying to show the non-mystical side of these things...I don't believe that stuff is necessary to understand the world.

[ironbark]

100. "just trying to show the non-mystical side of these things"

Lord Śiva said: My dear son, I, Lord Brahmā and the other demigods, who rotate within this universe under the misconception of our greatness, cannot exhibit any power to compete with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for innumerable universes and their inhabitants come into existence and are annihilated by the simple direction of the Lord." (Bhagavata Purana 9.4.56)





The Quran refers to seven heavens. Arabic is a precise language and the heavens indicated are material not spiritual. One verse says that each heaven or sky has its own order, possibly meaning laws of nature. Another verse says after mentioning the seven heavens "and similar earths".


;-)

[meeshrox]

102. So?

Still looking for an answer as to the cause of the Big Bang...
I am very curious... :popcorn:

[ironbark]

104. If an illiterate merchant/herder in 600ad

can identify that the physical heavens and the earth were once joined together and then “clove usunder” (a far more scientifically precise term than ‘Big Bang’ for there was no ‘noise’) and then follow that with life arising from the water and attribute all this knowledge to god…..

There is a possibility well worthy of further investigation that “the cause of the Big Cleft Asunder” was the entity that supplied the information to the illiterate merchant/herder.

The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
by Dr. Maurice Bucaille
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT
OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm

Is worth a read for anyone interested in science/astronomy.

Partial index-
The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth
Differences from and resemblances to the Biblical Description
The Six Periods of the Creation
The Qur'an does not lay down a sequence for the creation of the Earth and Heavens
The basic process of the formation of the Universe and the resulting composition of the Worlds
Some modern Scientific data concerning the formation of the Universe
The Solar System
The Galaxies
Formation and Evolution of Galaxies, Stan and Planetary Systems
The Concept of the Plurality of the Worlds
Interstellar Material
Confrontation with the data in the Qur'an concerning the creation
Answer to Certain Objections
Astronomy in the Qur'an
A. General reflections concerning the Sky
B. Nature of Heavenly Bodies
The Sun and the Moon
The Stars
The Planets
The Lowest Heaven
C. Celestial Organization
The Existence of the Moon's and the Sun's Orbits
1. The Moon's Orbit
2. The Sun
Reference to the Movement of the Moon and the Sun in Space With Their Own Motion
The Sequence of Day and Night
D. Evolutions of the Heavens
The Expansion of the Universe
E. The conquest of Space
The Earth


Considering this range of observations and claims one would expect, from the time and a human source, there should be glairing errors in the light of contemporary science.
Bucaille finds none.

sura 55, verse 33: "O assembly of Jinns and Men, if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them save with a Power."

That, again, is a reference to physical (not spiritual) ‘heavens’…why would someone in the Arabian peninsular in 600ad be suggesting that the heavens could be penetrated?

I am very curious too ;-)

"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."
(sura 51, verse 47)

[meeshrox]

110. The only possible thing I can say to that is...

hindsight is 20/20.

I reject your answer because you are using scripture to answer scientific questions. The time when these documents were written was more than 1000 years before modern scientific thought began. There is no way that these documents can possibly explain science because modern science did not exist at the time.

"Is worth a read for anyone interested in science/astronomy." It may have astronomy words in it, but I doubt that you'll get an unbiased perspective (ie: without religious interjection) from this book. I highly suggest "Billions and Billions" and "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan for a good start (if you're truly interested in astronomy and science without religious interjection). *when I mention religious interjection, I mean for it to say that

AND, yes, I have wasted by time reading a few books on this topic... :eyeroll:

[AlecBGreen]

106. get some Listerine!

seriously, nobody likes talking to someone with puke breath :P j/k

The point Im trying to make is that I see no conflict between 1) believing in God and 2) believing in "a description of what the prevailing knowledge {of the Big Bang} is."

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour. --William Blake

[meeshrox]

109. I understand your point

and I can see why you say that.

For me, using science (and thus, understanding the big bang) is simpler without religion (think Occam's Razor). I have a problem when people use scripture, and more generally religion, to explain scientific theories (see my post from earlier this morning)...

edited to add: the post from earlier this morning did not post, apparently...I just posted it a few minutes ago...

[iris27]

72. ...everything must have a cause EXCEPT that which is the root...

But what makes more sense at that point? For there to have always been in existence an almighty, all-knowing being of supreme cosmic powers? Or for there to have always been in existence a pool of energy, which converts back and forth into different forms of matter?

To me, it makes more sense to think that the basic building blocks have just always been here than to assume a separate, large, complex force must have been around first in order to create those basic building blocks.

[dmallind]

63. Occam's Razor comes in handy. And ineffability is a bitch.

why does existencve need something else to make it possible? Isn't it simpler just to accept the existence of a thing without positing that something else must have made it possible?

And when you get into the "we cannot possibly understand God" ineffability bit, that leads to the unavoidable conclusion that we can say absolutely nothing about God with any truth value. Hypothetically of course this is perfectly reasonable. Anything worthy of the name must by definition be beyond our comprehension. But that makes God as irrelevant to us as Shakespeare is to dogs, and for much the same reason. If God is indescribable we can say nothing true about him, and it doean't make the damnedest bit of difference then to even think about him.

[omega minimo]

91. "Him"? Who said God is "Him"?

You're talking about a level of ineffability and indescription and still using HIM? :wow:


"why does existencve need something else to make it possible? Isn't it simpler just to accept the existence of a thing without positing that something else must have made it possible?"


What if "existence" is the Thing?

[LAGC]

95. What are you saying?

That everything is "God?"

Doesn't that kind of dilute the concept? After all, is it good enough to worship your shoes because they are "of God?"

When you take a #2 in the toilet, are you in fact defecating on God?

See the problem with that kind of "universalist" thinking?

[omega minimo]

97. What do you mean "worship"?

Why do you picture God in the toilet?

[Laura902]

67. To pantheists god is just the sum

of all the complexity of the universe, life and nature- I like that definition. Like pantheists I view nature as something to protect, I just don't call it god or anything god for that matter.

[mcollins]

78. Why don't we start with something simple

like what is blue?

[tama]

82. LOL

good one. :)

[ironbark]

84. Oh!...Oh!.....I know this one!

Half of green!

[omega minimo]

90. LOL

:rofl:

[ironbark]

98. God is...

"closer to you than your jugular vein."

(Quran 50.16)

Yea...I know...it appears to be more of a 'where is' than a 'what is'...

But I don't think that's the case.

;-)

[omega minimo]

99. I can't live...... with or without you.......

within and/or without you.....

:hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

105. Love

But I like your description, too.

I think we'll always struggle with that - or at least thoughtful people will - because God is outside our ability to contain. We simply cannot grasp all of God.

In fact, those most eager for "God in a box" are the ones who frighten me.

[RagAss]

107. You cannot get there with words...you cannot get there with mind.

[tama]

108. God is?

3rd person singular of the verb 'to be'?