Can you define your god?

[PolyHedral]

Let there be the additive identity. Call it 0...

I think you can tell where I'm going with this.

 

[Madhuri]

Isn't everything everything? Is god more than everything?

Wait...more than everything? Can't be.

I'm not sure that I see a point to this post.

 

[Commoner]

I'm not sure that I see a point to this post.

Then delete it.

The point is, saying that god is everything voids the term "god" (or the term "everything") of any meaning. It's akin to saying god is or everything is (or isn't), it has no value as a definition and it doesn't help explain anything. It's just a way of tricking yourself (or someone else) by seemingly moving it another step deeper - like saying, nothing can come from nothing, so there must have been a creator, while forgetting that that leads to an infinite regression of creators creating creators.

 

[Breathe]

@OP


No physical attributes.
No gender.
No form.
Possibly subjective (personal idea-deity) but definitely (also) objective (Supreme Ultimate reality).
No anger, no hatred, no judgement. Not after appeasement. Not a king, nor a master.
No concern for one's nationality, religion, sexuality, ethnic group, or language.


How can I define what is pretty much indefinable? All I can say is I see God as the embodiment of love, bliss, and Pure Consciousness.




I hold panentheistic and monistic views of the nature of God, but even that opinion may change.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

My god is the big "it" definitely not gender specific like he or she nor is it intelligent. "It" being the unconscious natural principles that created us. "It" just being merely nature and its laws. "It" being the universe as a whole.

 

[Onkara]

Then delete it.

The point is, saying that god is everything voids the term "god" (or the term "everything") of any meaning. It's akin to saying god is or everything is (or isn't), it has no value as a definition and it doesn't help explain anything. It's just a way of tricking yourself (or someone else) by seemingly moving it another step deeper - like saying, nothing can come from nothing, so there must have been a creator, while forgetting that that leads to an infinite regression of creators creating creators.

The infinite regression of creators creating creators can only happen in imagination. It is false whether we think it is true or forget. My personal stance is that we must begin and end with something we can confirm for ourselves.

 

[Commoner]

The infinite regression of creators creating creators can only happen in imagination. It is false whether we think it is true or forget.

Well, exactly. But in any case, it doesn't (wouldn't) solve the problem, that's the point. But for a lot of people, the one extra layer of uncreated creator is enough for them to seemingly remove the paradox. Instead of the universe being "uncreated" - which they don't think is possible (because nothing comes from nothing) and will go to great lengths arguing against, the creator is "uncreated" and they don't need to worry about it anymore.

Problem "solved". :no:

 

[Onkara]

Bare with me, I am struggling to find your stance above. The problem is the foundation on which change arises. Change implies a creator and creation, but only by observation because time is lineal and creation cannot be reversed (by us). If all change and creation is recognised as occurring in itself, e.g. milk turns to cheese, then there is an answer.

 

[Commoner]

Bare with me, I am struggling to find your stance above. The problem is the foundation on which change arises. Change implies a creator and creation, but only by observation because time is lineal and creation cannot be reversed (by us). If all change and creation is recognised as occurring in itself, e.g. milk turns to cheese, then there is an answer.

Why exactly would change imply a creator?

 

[Madhuri]

Then delete it.

The point is, saying that god is everything voids the term "god" (or the term "everything") of any meaning. It's akin to saying god is or everything is (or isn't), it has no value as a definition and it doesn't help explain anything. It's just a way of tricking yourself (or someone else) by seemingly moving it another step deeper - like saying, nothing can come from nothing, so there must have been a creator, while forgetting that that leads to an infinite regression of creators creating creators.

I'm not going to delete your post. Did you mean to say' ignore it'?

Saying that God is everything is a quick summation. It can be explained in greater detail, but that would have required some greater effort on my part and I'm generally pretty lazy for that.
The idea that God is everything comes from the concept of a Creator who intelligently expands itself to manifest all of creation (both Creator and Created). Therefore, everything in existence is a part of that Intelligent Entity. And thus God is everything.

 

[Commoner]

I'm not going to delete your post. Did you mean to say' ignore it'?

Yeah! How did that happen?! I might have to lay off the caffeine!

Saying that God is everything is a quick summation. It can be explained in greater detail, but that would have required some greater effort on my part and I'm generally pretty lazy for that.
The idea that God is everything comes from the concept of a Creator who intelligently expands itself to manifest all of creation (both Creator and Created). Therefore, everything in existence is a part of that Intelligent Entity. And thus God is everything.

I'm familiar with the concept, I'm just not much of a fan of it.

 

[Madhuri]

I'm familiar with the concept, I'm just not much of a fan of it.

Which would explain why you do not consider yourself panentheistic.

I think this conversation has reached a dead end.

 

[Caladan]

What attributes, physical or otherwise does your god/higher being/ whateves, possess? Is he a man/woman/thing? Is he subjective/objective? What is he?

When the legendary 13th century Persian poet Jalal ad-Din Rumi met Shams-e Tbrizi, the event changed his life from end to end. from a teacher of much prestige in the Islamic community he abandoned his position and pursued his spiritual interests.
it is said that Shams had traveled throughout the Middle East searching and praying for someone who could "endure my company". A voice said to him, "What will you give in return?" Shams replied, "My head!" The voice then said, "The one you seek is Jalal ud-Din of Konya." On the night of 5 December 1248, as Rumi and Shams were talking, Shams was called to the back door. He went out, never to be seen again. It is rumored that Shams was murdered with the connivance of Rumi's son, 'Ala' ud-Din; if so, Shams indeed gave his head for the privilege of mystical friendship.

Rumi has said of Shams: 'everything that I have thought about God, I have today met in a human being'

 

[Commoner]

Which would explain why you do not consider yourself panentheistic.

I think this conversation has reached a dead end.

Well, no, I don't consider myself a pantheist or a panentheist because I don't think there's any truth to the claims. I also don't like it because I think there is simply no value in describing something we know so little about (as a whole) with such a highly divisive and poorly defined term as "god".

But if I'm not much mistaken, what you're describing is pantheism, but I might be wrong - sometimes it's hard to tell where one starts and the other ends. Listen, you needn't discuss it if you don't want to. :sorry1:

 

[Madhuri]

Well, no, I don't consider myself a pantheist or a panentheist because I don't think there's any truth to the claims. I also don't like it because I think there is simply no value in describing something we know so little about (as a whole) with such a highly divisive and poorly defined term as "god".

But if I'm not much mistaken, what you're describing is pantheism, but I might be wrong - sometimes it's hard to tell where one starts and the other ends. Listen, you needn't discuss it if you don't want to. :sorry1:

I'm happy to discuss things, but it didn't seem like you were doing much discussing. Now you've given me some material to answer to properly.

It's fine with me that you don't see the world the same as I do. We all have different perceptions, experiences etc. So I'm not going to start trying to convince you of anything.

Pantheism is different from panentheism. Panentheism considers God to be an individual, intelligent entity. God is the Source of everything. The Creator. Creation, in a way, is like a thought- God's thought. At least from a Hindu panenthistic perspective, all of existence is 'made' of God's consciousness and energy.
So this is different from pantheism, which pretty much sees God and the universe as one. Imo, I wouldn't even both to use the term God if I were a pantheist. I'd just say Universe.

 

[Commoner]

I'm happy to discuss things, but it didn't seem like you were doing much discussing. Now you've given me some material to answer to properly.

It's fine with me that you don't see the world the same as I do. We all have different perceptions, experiences etc. So I'm not going to start trying to convince you of anything.

Pantheism is different from panentheism. Panentheism considers God to be an individual, intelligent entity. God is the Source of everything. The Creator. Creation, in a way, is like a thought- God's thought. At least from a Hindu panenthistic perspective, all of existence is 'made' of God's consciousness and energy.

I just don't know what that even means, not when I really think about it. I can understand it in the same way I understand a fantastical novel, but not in any real sense - not the mechanisms that are supposed to govern it. Do you? Does anyone?

When you say god's consciousness, do you understand what that means? Is there any reason to assume such a thing exists? That's the problem I have with it - I don't think there's any reason to consider these to be anything more than interesting thoughts, aynthing more than metaphors. I wouldn't even mind being convinced of it...

So this is different from pantheism, which pretty much sees God and the universe as one. Imo, I wouldn't even both to use the term God if I were a pantheist. I'd just say Universe.

Yeah, but their point is, it's an "intelligent" universe, isn't it?

 

[Madhuri]

I just don't know what that even means, not when I really think about it. I can understand it in the same way I understand a fantastical novel, but not in any real sense - not the mechanisms that are supposed to govern it. Do you? Does anyone?

When you say god's consciousness, do you understand what that means? Is there any reason to assume such a thing exists? That's the problem I have with it - I don't think there's any reason to consider these to be anything more than interesting thoughts, anything more than metaphors. I wouldn't even mind being convinced of it...

I know what you mean. These are just ideas in the mind.
The only way that a person can understand it in any real capacity is through experience and realisation.
To bring Hinduism back into this, that is the purpose of the Yoga systems (not referring to the exercise). It isn't a religion about having blind faith, it is a religion about discovering the truth for yourself.

Imo, panentheism is the only God concept that makes any intellectual sense to me. I haven't had the profound experiences of Oneness with the Divine that many have had, but I've had enough spiritual experience that I'm curious to follow the path to finding out for certain.

 

[Commoner]

I know what you mean. These are just ideas in the mind.
The only way that a person can understand it in any real capacity is through experience and realisation.
To bring Hinduism back into this, that is the purpose of the Yoga systems (not referring to the exercise). It isn't a religion about having blind faith, it is a religion about discovering the truth for yourself.

Imo, panentheism is the only God concept that makes any intellectual sense to me. I haven't had the profound experiences of Oneness with the Divine that many have had, but I've had enough spiritual experience that I'm curious to follow the path to finding out for certain.

The problem is, we kinda know what causes those experiences. At least, we know what could cause that kind of experiences and there's nothing spiritual about it. For example, there's the "god helmet". Hell, if you've ever had a high fever or experimented with drugs, you'll know just how "spooky" and unusual our mind can make things.

With that in mind, how could even having such an experience be enough to "suspend skepticism"? And what would they demonstrate?

 

[Madhuri]

The problem is, we kinda know what causes those experiences. At least, we know what could cause that kind of experiences and there's nothing spiritual about it. For example, there's the "god helmet". Hell, if you've ever had a high fever or experimented with drugs, you'll know just how "spooky" and unusual our mind can make things.

With that in mind, how could even having such an experience be enough to "suspend skepticism"? And what would they demonstrate?

Nobody has studied the experiences of Vedic Yoga systems. They haven't got a clue what it even is. There nothing 'spooky' about it. It's probably the most real experience you'll ever have.

 

[Commoner]

Nobody has studied the experiences of Vedic Yoga systems. They haven't got a clue what it even is. There nothing 'spooky' about it. It's probably the most real experience you'll ever have.

That's not really the point. The question is, how would one be able to attribute such experiences to "spiritual" causes rather than to other causes - like the ones we know are capable of producing experiences that people interpret as spiritual.

Let's just assume they are spiritual, whatever that might be, how would you distinguish that from a non-spiritual experience that seems like one?