For you can be convinced that something is without knowing what it is in itself. An analogy I use sometimes is you can hear things in a forest and become convinced that something is there without knowing what it is that is there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is God?
- Thread starter blü 2
- Start date
For you can be convinced that something is without knowing what it is in itself. An analogy I use sometimes is you can hear things in a forest and become convinced that something is there without knowing what it is that is there.
Brian2
Veteran Member
God is: omniscient,
omnipotent,
omnipresent,
perfect,
eternal,
infinite,
spiritual,
supernatural,
immaterial
We are just human and have not experienced these things.
All our understanding takes place in our mind, but that is not just in our brain.
If God is not real because the revelation is internal then none of our understanding is real.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Jesus knows His Father and both Jesus and the Father come and live in a Christian.
Jesus is a man but is more than just a man because Jesus has the same nature as His Father also and now is still a man but has gone back to filling the whole universe as God.
If we know Jesus we know the Father also.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Seems like we have different understanding
but thats ok
Suave
Simulated character
Please allow me to posit God as being a posthuman technologically super advanced civilization living in base reality from where they have programmed simulated beings and simulated universes by some sort of powerful computer. Technologically advanced computers programmed by a posthuman technologically super advanced civilization might be performing an ancestral simulation whereby the actions of the posthuman technologically super advanced civilization ancestors' brain neurons are being realistically simulated along with the brain's sensory input having enough accuracy to convince each simulated character that he/she is real.
Indications we might be living in a simulated reality:
1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.
2. This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding might be indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality. Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle.
3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. claims that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.
Last edited:
Wouldn't it require you to be omniscient for you to state as a fact that nothing (else) in all of existence is omniscient?
Unless you have exhaustive knowledge of the entire multiverse I don't know how you declare most of the things on your list don't exist anywhere in any way.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
So the father is not an unknowable essence....he's a perfect and all powerful human?
If he's flesh he can be knowable by how people describe him. If it's God all God religions I came across don't describe it to a T.
Unknowable and knowable at the same time?
Then he's not unknowable essence.
You can't be I AM without a name then say the name has attributes yet an unknown essence.
How does Jesus define the father's nature (the noun)?
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The argument is you cannot define (not describe) the source of the sound you're hearing to know if the sound comes from the source you are told it originates.
For example, if I heard an animal in the woods and can distinguish it as a bear by sound I can tell you it's a bear, it sounds like X.
But I say the source is unknown your description of the sound has no basis in truth-no known source.
That's why people ask for proof...not the adjectives and representative but the primary source.
Saying it's a creator only describes it's role not it's nature. Father doesn't describe it just a name people place on their god in his they relate to him. Lord, Christ, father, and God are examples
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
From history it seems to be anything or anyone that does cool stuff most people can’t.
I believe in the existence of the Cosmos, Earth, Life, and the spirit in me.
The spirit will leave, sometime, to merge with all the other spirits on Earth .
I will return to the Earth as I entered , Just some more Stuff.
If that is your `God`, check me in !.....or `out` !
The spirit will leave, sometime, to merge with all the other spirits on Earth .
I will return to the Earth as I entered , Just some more Stuff.
If that is your `God`, check me in !.....or `out` !
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
We can’t affirm that.
Saying it is Creator does in fact only describe the role, that is the point those Fathers make, and this is called an act/energy/operation. It does not say the nature of what creates.
But we can know to a degree (even though by denials and so on) what sort of thing can have these roles, that is also the point they try to make. All proofs of God (that this exists) are done in this way, so if that's what people want for proof then it is available and always has been. I do not see why not comprehending a nature means that we (a) can't know what a person does (b) can not know something is there, it doesn't make it unknown.
Now it is quite possible and probable I just misunderstood your post, the first sentence did confuse me. So if none of this has anything to do with what you said please tell me and I apologize.
Why not?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
This doesn't describe him as an unknowable essence (or any nature at all). It needs to say the nature of what one creates to make sense of who/what is doing the action and who/what is perfect. If you don't have that you can talk about the father all day but we wouldn't know exactly what you're talking about.
If I said you were cute, fat, and cuddly that doesn't tell me anything about what you are. You could be a bear, a cat, stuff animal, or human. Saying cute/fat/cuddley are adjectives but we don't know which noun you're speaking of.
Proof is looking for the source you're describing. We already know love exists (but perfection?). Cat lovers say cats love just as much as humans if not more. You have to be more specific in your Source.
This only applies if you have conversations with people who aren't on the same footing as you.
The forest analogy?
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Where have you seen any "magical" reference in the Hebrew bible? or any spiritual idea for that matter.
No.
The expansion of the universe is actually what we call reduction. It means that god "reduced" the light in order to allow the "space" we call universe.
Its very hard to explain without the background and understanding of other terms.
Also, As God is non-spatial, the concept of space doesn't really apply to it.
If you want more detailed explanation about the idea of reduction, I will gladly elaborate.
That is the position one may hold. I think it goes beyond our brains. Like the person who is clinically dead but sees his body looking from above.
I think if one is objective, one considers the possibility. For me, personal experience is another way of confirming (though that can be subjective) but valid for me.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Too loaded. Also is a decomposition. It fundamentally will not work.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but John Lennon also said “I am the egg man”, so not sure how reliable he is as a guru tbh.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you might try abandoning the false (I would say) distinction between the self and the world outside. The self and the world beyond it are one, though the ego is pretty heavily invested in convincing us otherwise.
Then you might suspend the judgement whereby the abstract is of less value than the tangible - after all, abstractions have all sorts of practical applications in the world you consider to be the “real” one.
In my experience, the more one demands empirical evidence for the existence of an underlying creative intelligence, let alone a loving God with a concern for all living things, the further one feels from what is actually very close at hand.
Something created by the subconscious in some people's minds.
Even if something exists which could be called God, that's all anybody has, IMO.
At best an idea, at worst an antonymous entity created by the subconscious mind which haunts you.