Why call the great mystery 'God'?

[Desert Snake]

ps: Don't bother to reply, cause.. whatever..

Hahaha

 

[Tumah]

Right, but the point is that it is possible to say things about God, to use concepts and words to get some grasp of who or what God is (or is not) and is capable of (or not), whether one does so apophatically or cataphatically. My earlier question, whether God is capable of destroying Herself - or incapable of destroying Herself - therefore has some sense to it.

In my theology, not. Because any type of description is an expression of our universe and by extension, of the creation. G-d is independent of creation and so there is nothing that we can say about His nature in the positive. This is also true about words such as "destruction" or "creation". If we want to apply them to G-d, we have to remove the facade that is the universe and in that circumstance, these concepts do not exist.
The only thing that we can really discuss is our subjective perception of what G-d does and understand that G-d intended that we perceive it as such, even though its not an adequate or accurate understanding of what G-d actually did.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

In my theology, not. Because any type of description is an expression of our universe and by extension, of the creation. G-d is independent of creation and so there is nothing that we can say about His nature in the positive. This is also true about words such as "destruction" or "creation". If we want to apply them to G-d, we have to remove the facade that is the universe and in that circumstance, these concepts do not exist.
The only thing that we can really discuss is our subjective perception of what G-d does and understand that G-d intended that we perceive it as such, even though its not an adequate or accurate understanding of what G-d actually did.

Can we, in your opinion, discuss our subjective perceptions of what God is or is not capable of doing?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Is there in fact a "great mystery", or just a lot of stuff we don't know?

 

[Tumah]

Can we, in your opinion, discuss our subjective perceptions of what God is or is not capable of doing?

We can do whatever we want, so long as we realize we are not touching on G-d Himself, only on our perception of what G-d has done.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

We can do whatever we want, so long as we realize we are not touching on G-d Himself, only on our perception of what G-d has done.

Okay, so is it your perception that God is (in)capable of destroying Herself?

 

[Tumah]

Okay, so is it your perception that God is (in)capable of destroying Herself?

Again, we can't speak anything about G-d Himself, only about our perception of what G-d has done.
You are asking me about my perceptions G-d's actual capabilities. That is not the same as what I'm talking about. I'm talking about our perception of what G-d has caused to happen. G-d causes events to occur that we perceive as an expression of love, so we say G-d loves. Not because G-d's nature is loving, but because G-d intends that we perceive Him as loving through the events that He causes. We can't say anything about G-d's nature, because love is a concept and by extension created and G-d is the Creator, not the created.
Since we can only speak of our perception of Him, we can only speak of the results of His causation within the creation, because as creatures we are also bound by the creation. So its impossible for me to answer your question, because that would require a perception of G-d outside the creation.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Again, we can't speak anything about G-d Himself, only about our perception of what G-d has done.
You are asking me about my perceptions G-d's actual capabilities. That is not the same as what I'm talking about. I'm talking about our perception of what G-d has caused to happen. G-d causes events to occur that we perceive as an expression of love, so we say G-d loves. Not because G-d's nature is loving, but because G-d intends that we perceive Him as loving through the events that He causes. We can't say anything about G-d's nature, because love is a concept and by extension created and G-d is the Creator, not the created.
Since we can only speak of our perception of Him, we can only speak of the results of His causation within the creation, because as creatures we are also bound by the creation. So its impossible for me to answer your question, because that would require a perception of G-d outside the creation.

Okay, thank you for taking the time to further explain your point of view.

 

[serp777]

Again, we can't speak anything about G-d Himself, only about our perception of what G-d has done.
You are asking me about my perceptions G-d's actual capabilities. That is not the same as what I'm talking about. I'm talking about our perception of what G-d has caused to happen. G-d causes events to occur that we perceive as an expression of love, so we say G-d loves. Not because G-d's nature is loving, but because G-d intends that we perceive Him as loving through the events that He causes. We can't say anything about G-d's nature, because love is a concept and by extension created and G-d is the Creator, not the created.
Since we can only speak of our perception of Him, we can only speak of the results of His causation within the creation, because as creatures we are also bound by the creation. So its impossible for me to answer your question, because that would require a perception of G-d outside the creation.

Ugh the whole G-d thing is obnoxious. Its GOD. God almost certainly doesn't care about your hyphen placement. If God does care about it he's so petty that he's probably upset at you for talking about him in the first place since anyone can fill in G-d with God in their minds.

Also we can't speak anything about God because God has never unambiguously demonstrated that he definitely exists. Our perception makes matters worse because we have no way of distinguishing God's actions from an advanced alien, or a demon, or a different God.

 

[Tumah]

Ugh the whole G-d thing is obnoxious. Its GOD. God almost certainly doesn't care about your hyphen placement. If God does care about it he's so petty that he's probably upset at you for talking about him in the first place since anyone can fill in G-d with God in their minds.

Also we can't speak anything about God because God has never unambiguously demonstrated that he definitely exists. Our perception makes matters worse because we have no way of distinguishing God's actions from an advanced alien, or a demon, or a different God.

Ok.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

God is essence and we call the essence God because it is unique.

I don't fundamentally object to this definition, its the associations with the concept I think could be problematic.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

There's obviously a lot of mysteries in nature and our cosmos... But what is this "great mystery"? Is there even such a thing?

I don't know if there is such a thing, as we would call I thing. I'm very playful with the idea of the Tao, as I think Lao-tzu was. I don't know if there is a Tao, but the conception we call the Tao.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

No, I am referring to scientific laws. The laws of thermodynamics. These are laws that govern out universe. We don't live in a chaotic system. Gravity always pulls in the same direction and never turns into orange juice. We are governed by logic.

Except that in the scientific sense a law doesn't mean this- as though we were speaking of a written law, conceived by somebody. Its basically a premise unable to be contradicted through experimentation.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

I would be one of those who would argue that the Tanakh is far from logical...

I'd agree, but I don't think logic can necessarily tell us the entire truth, even if its all we have. I don't underestimate the philosophical problems of the limitations of our perception.

 

[illykitty]

I don't know if there is such a thing, as we would call I thing. I'm very playful with the idea of the Tao, as I think Lao-tzu was. I don't know if there is a Tao, but the conception we call the Tao.

Yeah, I can understand that perspective. I'm prone to wanting to look at certain things as more than what they might be... I like the concept of archetypes and have thought of having a concept like, or that is, the Tao. I don't believe in gods but some higher "somethings" are attractive to me, but I also have a part of me that feels dubious and wonders if I'm just fooling myself.

I'm still very much an agnostic though and I see you're an atheist, so I guess I can see where you're coming from... Have you gone through these questions yourself?

 

[Tumah]

Except that in the scientific sense a law doesn't mean this- as though we were speaking of a written law, conceived by somebody. Its basically a premise unable to be contradicted through experimentation.

How does that affect my point?

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

How does that affect my point?

Because you seem to be arguing that scientific laws are laws of such a sort. Am I wrong?

 

[Tumah]

Because you seem to be arguing that scientific laws are laws of such a sort. Am I wrong?

I am not saying, that if gravity stopped, that its going to be ticketed, or that its written in the magna carta universum that the Earth has to rotate in the direction that causes the sun to rise in the east or risk jail time.
Gravity and the Earth's rotational direction are rules in nature. They are set, if anything else were to happen, they would represent a breakdown in the laws that we observe in our universe. The Earth should not be able to turn the other way in one night causing the sun to rise in the west, nor should the sun be able to rise in the west without the earth changing its rotational direction. If the gravitational force were to stop working for a few minutes, the universe would have a big problem.

These features of the universe, were designed with logic. If they were chaotic, it would be impossible to create principles about them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It seems that a lot of people have a sense of wonder and mystery from being alive. A sense of wonder and awe toward the universe. Let's call this the great mystery, and am I wrong to say many theists define this mystery as God?

My question is why call the mystery God? Lao-tzu did not believe we could speak of the great mystery in any truthful terms, and merely called it the Tao to call it 'something'.

The mystery might really exist, or it might be something of our perception, and actually void of any 'suchness'.

What makes me an atheist in spite of accepting the Tao, is I do not call the mystery a god. I do not believe the ideas of gods do the mystery justice. I believe the mystery and the universe are much greater than these concepts.

That is my question for you friends: what causes the mystery to be called god, and people to attach all these human terms and conceptions to the unfathomable?

Out of millions of species on Earth, and as far as we can tell in all creation, we alone are the only beings contemplating this question, the only means by which the universe itself can ponder it's own existence..

I define the least improbable solution to this mystery as most people do; God, a being who created humanity in his image, as primary beneficiaries of his creation. By the same logic that tells me a book written in English was intended for those who can read English.

 

[Bird123]

It seems that a lot of people have a sense of wonder and mystery from being alive. A sense of wonder and awe toward the universe. Let's call this the great mystery, and am I wrong to say many theists define this mystery as God?

My question is why call the mystery God? Lao-tzu did not believe we could speak of the great mystery in any truthful terms, and merely called it the Tao to call it 'something'.

The mystery might really exist, or it might be something of our perception, and actually void of any 'suchness'.

What makes me an atheist in spite of accepting the Tao, is I do not call the mystery a god. I do not believe the ideas of gods do the mystery justice. I believe the mystery and the universe are much greater than these concepts.

That is my question for you friends: what causes the mystery to be called god, and people to attach all these human terms and conceptions to the unfathomable?

Are not labels a self imposed restriction to the real view of reality? Should not God be more than wonder and awe? People like to box and label, but how many things actually fit completely into these boxes?

This is my view: We are all Spiritual beings in our true natures just like God. We all already know God. These physical bodies which temporarily block out past knowledge can not block who we really are.

Knowing this deep down is the reason religion exists. Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. Since God insists mankind discover the answers themselves, mankind's beliefs are heavy in all religions. When a person does not know all the facts, a person patches the missing pieces with beliefs. When religion teaches people to value beliefs over all else, all one gets is a mess.

I think this universe is set up to where all the real answers can be discovered. On the other hand, discovery takes work. It's so much easier to find a religion we like and simply accept the beliefs as truth. On the other hand, what do you really have? Not much.