God - real or imagined?

[Sunstone]

Notions of deity are a dime a dozen.

 

[wizanda]

One day cosmologists will understand how the universe came into existence, and I suspect they will find a much stranger and more impressive answer than our crude, limited notions of "God".

What if when we do, we find in the center of the universe, a huge singularity that goes beyond the dimension, and outputs the reality we see around us.... What shall we call it, when it manifests all of life, maybe we could call it Brahman, El, etc, or maybe we could call it God.
Mankind's personalized deities detract from us finding, and understanding the CPU in a logical format.

 

[hrsweet]

Keep in mind that, thus far, I have only addressed the concept of deity and concluded that it is illogical. This does not necessarily lead to reductionism to some 'fundamental element'. It also does not preclude that there is a source for the creation. It is just to say that we can not intellectually approach source of creation because intellect is confined to the creation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What if when we do, we find in the center of the universe, a huge singularity that goes beyond the dimension, and outputs the reality we see around us.... What shall we call it, when it manifests all of life, maybe we could call it Brahman, El, etc, or maybe we could call it God.

"God" will be long forgotten by then.

 

[Sha'irullah]

As I have always said, gods function like variables in algebra. Human beings are without a doubt responsible for gods and should actually fess up and hold responsibility. You can;t use logic to argue with a theist though often times since it is emotionally rooted claims you are tackling.

 

[hrsweet]

You can;t use logic to argue with a theist though often times since it is emotionally rooted claims you are tackling.

Which means that to understand the virtually universal belief in deity, the approach that needs to be taken is psychological.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Which means that to understand the virtually universal belief in deity, the approach that needs to be taken is psychological.

It looks to me basically like a human need for comfort in an uncertain existence.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Which means that to understand the virtually universal belief in deity, the approach that needs to be taken is psychological.

The usual argument as far as psychology goes is the argument on personification. Almost all creatures interpret things the same. As humans we tend to assume all actions are from conscious beings. No animal would find anything threatening if it was natural forces or chance. If you argue with a theist the vast majority of them you assert divine creation will presume only a conscious being can be a result of nature. Christians will assume an earthquake is an act of God because only a conscious entity can be a result of this. I have witnessed this logic with my own family as well. It is all a narrow minded form of thought obviously but it seems rational to them.

There is a psychological dependency on personification.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Which makes the whole notion of god meaningless.

I think quite the opposite. What can be more meaningful than a God which is existence itself? Pantheists are the closest people to God, because we are God.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What can be more meaningful than a God which is existence itself?

Existence itself?

 

[hrsweet]

The usual argument as far as psychology goes is the argument on personification. Almost all creatures interpret things the same. As humans we tend to assume all actions are from conscious beings. No animal would find anything threatening if it was natural forces or chance. If you argue with a theist the vast majority of them you assert divine creation will presume only a conscious being can be a result of nature. Christians will assume an earthquake is an act of God because only a conscious entity can be a result of this. I have witnessed this logic with my own family as well. It is all a narrow minded form of thought obviously but it seems rational to them.

There is a psychological dependency on personification.

I agree. The personification of the source of the creation is the intellect's attempt to understand it but only in terms of the creation as intellect can go no further. What you see in this forum and elsewhere are attempts to compare the power of the transcendent to the highest power that has been experienced in the relative universe. Historically that has been that of the king who has required worship by his subjects. Therefore, if we worship the king, we should worship God. Actually, that social structure dates to prehistoric times with all power being in the leader. We even see this in the social structure of the higher primates.

Because of this long history, the universality should be no surprise and not one that can be overcome with mere logic. The believer will simultaneously believe that the earthquake was 'an act of God' and he was spared because of 'God's grace'. The psychological need is too strong for the believer to confront this inconsistency and rely instead on comforting words from the clergy such as 'we can not understand the mind of God'.

 

[corynski]

I have no truly credible evidence of any 'real' god or goddess, nor of anything supernatural, but likely every group of humans has, at least since the days of spirits...... the water and tree spirits, weather spirits, etc. I think Deities must be understood from the point of view of social cohesion, a 'leader' which the group centers their beliefs around. For thousands and thousands of years humans were basically hunting and gathering groups, out of necessity for survival, and a strong 'god' could help the group become stronger. My feeling is that it is time to see religion for what it really is, l.e. lacking a supernatural component, and then see where the pieces fall. What bothers me in particular are the genocidal and ecocidal aspects of the 'Holy' book. I would also argue that it's hard to imagine a Deity creating three different religions with three different 'holy' books, all of which tell them who to kill if necessary.
And incidentally, may I plug the most amazing book regarding this subject, titled "The Origin of Consciousness In The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", by the late Julian Jaynes. Don't miss it.....

 

[AllanV]

Which means that to understand the virtually universal belief in deity, the approach that needs to be taken is psychological.

Psychological understanding is one approach.

There is something ruling in the mind that prompts with temptations apparent. These are observed when some one makes a pointed remark or words are spoken with certain emphasis on them. Actions and behaviors are another indicator.

Everyone has their own belief or they think they do. The mind and personality is developed with the biological forms influence in the background.
Strengths and weaknesses are developed in the emotions. Most people are socially active and display their personality for others to see, faults and all.

Because everyone lives in it there is no real comparison to any thing else.

It is highly possible or even probable that a different nature with its own mind may have existed at some point.

People who say they believe in God display the same skill set that any other person does. This throws into question their motives and intentions.

I have experience of God therefore have bias but this gives an explanation but does not reveal the Spirit of God.

God wears light as a garment and every object has its being and presence in God. The space the human takes up in volume is occupied by God as well.
This can be proven because God is an energizing Spirit. God is a life giving Spirit.
Every cell has life and every atom has movement in it.

Is it possible to have contact and awareness of God? Many individuals have and God is revealed in me.

It is shown that a mind change is required before God is revealed and this is not superficial. A small taste or deposit of this Spirit must be initiated to give a witness.
This is not something to fool around with because the hope is it will lead to immortality. If a person draws back from this and returns to their old life there will not be a second go.
If it is taken up the ultimate is to experience the divine nature, even in a
biological body. The hope is that this will lead to immortality with out a biological form and then having the use of a dimensional technology.

 

[hrsweet]

I have no truly credible evidence of any 'real' god or goddess, nor of anything supernatural, but likely every group of humans has, at least since the days of spirits...... the water and tree spirits, weather spirits, etc. I think Deities must be understood from the point of view of social cohesion, a 'leader' which the group centers their beliefs around. For thousands and thousands of years humans were basically hunting and gathering groups, out of necessity for survival, and a strong 'god' could help the group become stronger. My feeling is that it is time to see religion for what it really is, l.e. lacking a supernatural component, and then see where the pieces fall. What bothers me in particular are the genocidal and ecocidal aspects of the 'Holy' book. I would also argue that it's hard to imagine a Deity creating three different religions with three different 'holy' books, all of which tell them who to kill if necessary.
And incidentally, may I plug the most amazing book regarding this subject, titled "The Origin of Consciousness In The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", by the late Julian Jaynes. Don't miss it.....

There is a great deal of truth to what you say. Here's a brief complimentary view. The source of creation manifests as the creation. The Intelligence is not evenly distributed but, instead, manifests in varying clumps of awareness. Human awareness, the highest awareness that we know of, at the level of its intellect, empirically understands its own existence. But he/she also subconsciously understands this is inadequate because it is ignorant of the relationship between the manifest and the unmanifest. Because of this discomfort, intellect makes a feeble attempt to bring the unmanifest to its level of comprehension with the notion of deity.

Only the mystics know the satisfaction that comes with the experiential realization that the individual is not separate from the unmanifest as he is mistakenly informed by his intellect.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Existence itself?

Yes. Just to clarify in case of any confusion; not the action of existing, but the All, everything as One.

 

[YmirGF]

I think quite the opposite. What can be more meaningful than a God which is existence itself? Pantheists are the closest people to God, because we are God.

Why tart yourself in the clothes of a mistaken identity?

Human animals have such precious thinking.... a tad beyond their pay grade, but nevertheless, amusing.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why tart yourself in the clothes of a mistaken identity?

Human animals have such precious thinking.... a tad beyond their pay grade, but nevertheless, amusing.

It's not mistaken. The title definitely can apply to the universe, especiaaly if the universe is a living being as I belief.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes all we know is based on human intellect and we know from science human intellect is suspect.

Not to mention limitations that may prevent us from detecting what's potentially unknowable. Still, it's not any grounds to affirm any God as actually existing.

Any theist is certainly lying by saying God exists. That much remains certain.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not to mention limitations that may prevent us from detecting what's potentially unknowable.

That does provide quite a lot of room for speculation. Though it is, by definition, just speculation.

 

[psychoslice]

God doesn't exist in the world, its our imagination that makes him who we believe he is. This life is complexed to those who don't understand it, or know how to live it, so we make up stories to keep us from being frightened of life, and religion is that story.