KarlVonMox
Member
This is an extension of the other thread "Who is God?"
I ask not who, but what.
Please give a definition of "God".
I ask not who, but what.
Please give a definition of "God".
-
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 KarlVonMox
- Start date
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend KVM,
It is just a *LABEL*
for more read from this link:
Tao Te Ching
Best Wishes.
LOve & rgds
It is just a *LABEL*
for more read from this link:
Tao Te Ching
Best Wishes.
LOve & rgds
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
If I could box God in a definition then that wouldn't be my God
KarlVonMox
Member
Interesting responses, and I anticipated them.
Akin to "God is unknowable" or "God is beyond understanding" or "God cannot be defined"
One of the reasons I consider myself an atheist is because no theist has ever been able to give me a consistent definition of what "God" actually is - and to me, that makes the question of "Does God exist" largely irrelevant, because in order to ask that question one first has to define what "God" is.
Consider the following:
I say "I believe in a blark"
You ask "what is a blark?"
I respond the way you do "The blark is unknowable, undefinable, etc" aka "I dont know"
Because I say the blark cannot be known or defined, its a completely vacuous concept, and not worthy of any consideration. Why should I believe in something that cannot be defined? This is the "agnostic theist" position, and I think its pretty indefensible.
Thoughts?
Akin to "God is unknowable" or "God is beyond understanding" or "God cannot be defined"
One of the reasons I consider myself an atheist is because no theist has ever been able to give me a consistent definition of what "God" actually is - and to me, that makes the question of "Does God exist" largely irrelevant, because in order to ask that question one first has to define what "God" is.
Consider the following:
I say "I believe in a blark"
You ask "what is a blark?"
I respond the way you do "The blark is unknowable, undefinable, etc" aka "I dont know"
Because I say the blark cannot be known or defined, its a completely vacuous concept, and not worthy of any consideration. Why should I believe in something that cannot be defined? This is the "agnostic theist" position, and I think its pretty indefensible.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Who's asking you to?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I ascertain a number of meaningful things about a person depending on what they say about god.
katiafish
consciousness incarnate
that is the whole thing, what i said in my previous post, nothing anyone can say to you will make sense to you, because the concept of God is subjective. You need to experience it for yourself, otherwise the words of other people will remain just that, words....
besides, i am not a theist.. I am aware
besides, i am not a theist.. I am aware
Adam-a
New Member
God is merely a manifestation and attempt at an explaination of things that we do not currently understand. Throughout history man has placed the concept of God or an omnipotent being on things in it's environment. This evolved over time from worshipping the Sun to the recognition of several gods and godesses that represented the trials and realities of the people during those times. From this we can understand that contemporary God only serves as a representation for the gaps in modern theoretical science. Until technology and human understanding becomes inevitably more advanced we will continue this trend.
Of course you do have a point but the difference between 'blark' and 'God' is that we do have some ideas about what God is. We do not have much understanding or knowledge, but we do have some limited conception. The other important fact here is that 'God' represents the 'how' and 'why' of our existence, which is something that most humans strive to know of. 'Blark' on the other hand has yet no significance.
No actually, my response was an explanation for my limited ability to answer the question. "He" was merely part of the preface to the explanation.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend KVM,
Lao Tsu has best explained IT but it is to be intellectually understood.
Buddha on the other hand shows a WAY of realizing IT.
The center of this two end is MAN himself from where He has to both UNDERSTAND and REALIZE IT.
Both ways lead to *Nothingness* and when the individual merges with that NOTHINGNESS which is neither a self or a soul then what remains?
Then who is there to ask even any question when the THOUGHT does not remain.
Everything stands just on a *THOUGHT* .
Love & rgds
Lao Tsu has best explained IT but it is to be intellectually understood.
Buddha on the other hand shows a WAY of realizing IT.
The center of this two end is MAN himself from where He has to both UNDERSTAND and REALIZE IT.
Both ways lead to *Nothingness* and when the individual merges with that NOTHINGNESS which is neither a self or a soul then what remains?
Then who is there to ask even any question when the THOUGHT does not remain.
Everything stands just on a *THOUGHT* .
Love & rgds
enchanted_one1975
Resident Lycanthrope
To some a God is the All. To others, a God is a feel good dream.
Personally, my Gods and Goddesses are my All. There is nothing I would not do to please Them.
Personally, my Gods and Goddesses are my All. There is nothing I would not do to please Them.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
"God" is consummate perfection. This has the effect of rendering "God" beyond all scrutiny since consummate perfection is contained entirely within the realm of the logically indeterminate. The only way to ensure that no limits can act upon a thing is to render its qualities completely unknowable.
We are able to discern that which is limited. There are set rules that govern qualitative behavior of anything. But when all rules are voided because something is unlimited in every extent, then nothing makes sense anymore.
"God" cannot be said to be anything useful because anything said about "God" is not exactly truth. It is both existing and not existing. It is both beginning and not beginning. It is both end point and not end point.
The point is that such a thing is "useful" only in as much as it can be used to explain the "origination" of the totality of a cosmology. Either the totality of the cosmos (not just the universe mind) is eternal or it has a beginning. If reality has a beginning, then something which is not precisely real, but still has "existence" is needed to be able to allow for reality to "spring into being." Take an eternal and infinite in extent cosmological totality and suddenly you are trying to describe something not unlike consummate perfection...
MTF
We are able to discern that which is limited. There are set rules that govern qualitative behavior of anything. But when all rules are voided because something is unlimited in every extent, then nothing makes sense anymore.
"God" cannot be said to be anything useful because anything said about "God" is not exactly truth. It is both existing and not existing. It is both beginning and not beginning. It is both end point and not end point.
The point is that such a thing is "useful" only in as much as it can be used to explain the "origination" of the totality of a cosmology. Either the totality of the cosmos (not just the universe mind) is eternal or it has a beginning. If reality has a beginning, then something which is not precisely real, but still has "existence" is needed to be able to allow for reality to "spring into being." Take an eternal and infinite in extent cosmological totality and suddenly you are trying to describe something not unlike consummate perfection...
MTF