Is there a God, and if so, who is it?

[Guest]

ANd for there to be antipasto, there has to be pasta, right?

Damn, I'm hungry...

Yes, but you must be very careful.

Because if pasta and antipasta mix, the entire universe could explode!





I learned so many important facts from Star Trek!

 

[Liar]

Because if pasta and antipasta mix, the entire universe could explode!

Or at least your digestion system.

Had a chicken salad. Feel better now.


Ok, back to the God issue: One thing I do wonder about as an atheist (or content agnostic might be the right definition), is how, in all cultures, all through human history, the belief in supernatural deities, spitits, golden calves, buddah and whatnot have such an eerie ability to manifest itself.

Why is it that no major branch of civilisation simply said "It is what it is. And that is all there is to it."

#L

 

[fifty5]

Re: I, love, commas,

Ahh, but only if you think of god as a singular, physical being. If you think of god as the energy that runs through everyone and everything and as being connected to all, rather than one or many seperate things/beings then anything is possible.

Example of an honest to goodness miracle- so far:

The man who jumped over Niagra Falls and lived. He wasn't even trying! People have tried many times over the years and weren't ever successful, yet this guy who was trying to kill himself servived. Scientists still haven't been able to find a 'logical explaination' Sometimes the universe seems to extend just a little bit to make the impossible happen.

My daughter put a sharp-ass peace of glass in her mouth once. When I got it out, she had no cuts. Not one. the skin in your mouth is extremely easy to cut. Lucky her.

Why is it that every time my hat falls off, someone manages to find it and then find me, even when I'm no where near were I lost it? (I think I have a special hat angel)

I don't know if I necessarily believe that God really is all of those o words. I'm not saying he's not, I'm just not as tied to the idea that he *must* be or else he's not god. (using the male pronoun purely out of habit) Maybe god *isn't* all places at all times and maybe he doesn't know everything. Maybe god doesn't know *anything* cause he/it doesn't have a consciousness that is the same as ours. Maybe god doesnt' *know* but yet god *is* the knowledge. I don't have all the answers, I just keep asking the questions, and wodering. I do believe that you can talk to god, that god hears and sometimes god answers. God comes to us in ways that we can understand, and in ways that we can accept.

I'm also not tied to the idea that god is good. Maybe god is a sadistic bastard! (sometimes it seems that he is) I'm not afraid to question or to be 'irreverant.' Maybe god is nutral. Maybe god is failable. Maybe god has weaknesses, vices or flaws. (Like the greek gods did) Maybe god is my own higher conciousness. Maybe god and the devil are just one being with a split personality. The important thing (to me) is that I try not to take any 'fact' for granted. I question everything. I have even questioned if there *was* a god. I was willing to accept the possiblity that there was no god, but I found that for me, the answer is yes. I have felt god- and it could not have been anything else.

I don't have all the answers (that's also why I said, not *necessarily* supernatural. there's always that window.) I only have what I know and what I believe. And that all comes from my heart and my experience. The important thing, I think, is not whether you believe or not, but if you are willing to be open to possibilities and to listen to your heart. The only 'sin' if there is one, is a closed heart.

(sappy enough?)

Hi SnP,

I read all that and wanted to give some smart-ass replies...

Then I read it all again... and didn't!

Then I read it all again...
...and again...

Suddently I realised that after pondering this stuff during over half a century of life, the one thing I hadn't done was question the equating of “GOD” with the OOO concept of the Abrahamic faiths (I learnt that label from TV this evening!) Clearly, that doesn't fit your position at all.

I do know what I believe about that God, but - apart from having grasped that it's something completely different, so the above rejection doesn't apply - I realise that I simply don't understand what you're talking about. (That sounds judgemental, but isn't meant that way.)

Let me try to phrase an understandable question (which is hard)...

Clearly you can't tell me 'what' you think God is, but can you tell help me understand what you mean by the word, so that you can think the thought that 'you don't know for sure what God is'?

One part of what you wrote I can easily get alongside of - if what I think it means is what you meant...

Maybe god doesnt' *know* but yet god *is* the knowledge.

If I 'worship' anything, then I think I'd have to say that it is knowledge. IMNSHO, knowledge is the only thing that can save our world - knowledge of physics-and-the-other-sciences, of other people (in oh so many ways), and of everything else - 'knowledge' as the antithesis of prejudice and violence.

Help me follow you in your thoughts.

f5 (bowled over!)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yeah, I like that.

My reply to a similar topic in GB (which was copy/pasted from my respnse to a discussion on another forum):

Everything on this earth, man, plant, animal, rock, water, air.... Everything is a form of energy. And what is the first rule of energy? Energy does not die. It only changes form. And if you chew on that cookie long enough. You will find the chocolate chip of true self-awareness.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: I, love, commas,

I think you got me pretty good. (I think)

I guess I'm just saying that I know that there is *something* and that something to me is god (although not the OOO or whatever it was kind of god) I have some *ideas* about god, but they aren't firm or absolute (other than the one that god *is.*- hey did I just get what the bible means by I AM THAT I AM? or whatever it is???) Because like you, I'm ever questioning, pondering, challenging and trying not to take any of my beliefs for granted. A good belief is a tested belief, in my opinion.

I too have my opinions about the god of Abraham. Some of them I've posted elsewere, against my better judgment. Some of them will always leak out, and will be confused by many as my oppinions of god.

Not all of my thoughts, oppinoins or beliefs actually *make* sense, because they are always formulating, changing and growing. So if you couldn't follow all of it, that's perfectly understandable. But if it helped you at all in your own understanding- that is the best that could happen for both of us.

THat being said, if you have a specific point that you want me to explain or whatever, I'd be glad too.


ps, the begining of your post made me laugh!

Hi SnP,

I read all that and wanted to give some smart-ass replies...

Then I read it all again... and didn't!

Then I read it all again...
...and again...

Suddently I realised that after pondering this stuff during over half a century of life, the one thing I hadn't done was question the equating of “GOD” with the OOO concept of the Abrahamic faiths (I learnt that label from TV this evening!) Clearly, that doesn't fit your position at all.

I do know what I believe about that God, but - apart from having grasped that it's something completely different, so the above rejection doesn't apply - I realise that I simply don't understand what you're talking about. (That sounds judgemental, but isn't meant that way.)

Let me try to phrase an understandable question (which is hard)...

Clearly you can't tell me 'what' you think God is, but can you tell help me understand what you mean by the word, so that you can think the thought that 'you don't know for sure what God is'?

One part of what you wrote I can easily get alongside of - if what I think it means is what you meant...

If I 'worship' anything, then I think I'd have to say that it is knowledge. IMNSHO, knowledge is the only thing that can save our world - knowledge of physics-and-the-other-sciences, of other people (in oh so many ways), and of everything else - 'knowledge' as the antithesis of prejudice and violence.

Help me follow you in your thoughts.

f5 (bowled over!)

 

[SeaCat]

Prizes for the most thought inspiring post, once the thread has reached 2,000 (a thread such as this requires devotion).

If you have a faith, I'd be interested to hear what it is, and what it means to you.

Yes I have faith, I have faith in honor. I live by a code I was taught when I was young. After reading every religeous text I could lay hands on I found that my code of honor in many ways followed these religeons. (Don't go out of your way to hurt other people. Help others if you can.)
Having said that, i don't believe in or follow an organised religeon. These are based on the way someone else has read or translated these texts. Who can say they are right and I am wrong in how we read the same passage? (One of the best jokes I have ever heard deals with this.) No one can tell me they are not biased when reading these texts and their biases will show when they describe what they have read. (Who can say they have even been translated correctly?) A case in point. Christianity is against Adultry, yet in the bible there are many cases of it. I can't recall any passage in the bible where it speaks against Adultry per se. Not too mention the bible itself, if read without bias contradicts itself in many places. Who can tell me thier view on one passage is true when it goes against another part of the bible?
In many cases what I have read of religeon is just a good way of passing down common sense laws and history. (Muslim and Judaic laws against certain foods are based on scientific fact.)
As far as I'm concerned if you believe, that's fine. Just don't push your views on me.

Cat

 

[fifty5]

If I don't believe in God, then I can't believe in the Devil and all the dark stuff that goes with it.


Lou

Read 'A Christmas Carol' again, Lou - the bit about the two kids who are Ignorance and Want. Those are evils that unquestionably exist without requiring either a God or a Devil.  And much of 'the occult' seems to depend on them in one way or another; for instance by ignorance of statistical probability that explains why really freaky things do happen, even though they're so unlikely that for practical purposes you can ignore the possibility that they'll ever happen to you.  (People want explanations so much that if they don't understand the real one, they'll make up one they can understand.)

Statistics, physics, evolution and the genome explain so very much more than all religions (or Nostradamus) ever can - and those scientific explanations get better all the time!

We're still left with the problems of “Me”, “the-here-and-now”, and what the former does in the latter.

With or without religion, we all need a personal code of ethics.

f5 (Hoping that helps...)

 

[fifty5]

Why is it that no major branch of civilisation simply said "It is what it is. And that is all there is to it."

#L

Try science. That has been moving in that direction with a logically imperative inevitability. Trouble is, you need so much of it to get more-things-explained-than-unexplained - and by that time, there's too much for any individual to know all of it (even egg-heads like me and Einstein )

And (to repeat what I said elsewhere) people need explanations even more badly than they need the truth - if the science is too hard, they go back to astrology, or whatever.

f5 (worshipping knowledge)

 

[Guest]

Why is it that no major branch of civilisation simply said "It is what it is. And that is all there is to it."

I daresay it's against human nature to do so. We can't help but think of 'what it's all about it', even genius types do it beyond their science, e.g., Stephen Hawking:

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

from: A Brief History of Time, 1988

 

[fifty5]

Everything on this earth, man, plant, animal, rock, water, air.... Everything is a form of energy. And what is the first rule of energy? Energy does not die. It only changes form. And if you chew on that cookie long enough. You will find the chocolate chip of true self-awareness.

Hi Dranoel,

I really don't want to hurt you as an individual, but I do want to attack the over-simplisticness of that all too often offered half-truth.

Half true, because, in the sense of E=mc², yes everything is energy, but to complete that you need to add entropy and the second law of thermo-dynamics - that if energy is equal all around anywhere, it can't do anything whatsoever.

If you complete the science, that assertion becomes pretty meaningless - it's actually energy difference (not energy itself) that is significant.

To get any trancendental meaning out of it, either the term 'energy' has to be abandoned, or the whole thing has to be taken on a Zen basis, by which I mean the contemplation of something that is, in merely rational terms, nonsensical, but feels to be meaningful - so go figure for more enlightenment. I.E. It is a question, not an answer - it offers the opportunity for useful thought, but doesn't, of itself, explain anything.

Of course, a cynic might think that this "explanation" was foisted upon others by those who want to exploit the others' ignorance, but I certainly wouldn't assign you, Dranoel, to either of those camps.  Unfortunately my experience leads me to think that there are many 'gurus' out there whose main aim is to capitalise on their followers ignorance - and many more who are simply ignorant themselves.

f5 (suffering yet more punctuation-squitters)

 

[fifty5]

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

from: A Brief History of Time, 1988

Might an answer be that if that set of rules is true, then the consequences are inevitable?

f5

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm trying to understand this but-


hu?

Hi Dranoel,

I really don't want to hurt you as an individual, but I do want to attack the over-simplisticness of that all too often offered half-truth.

Half true, because, in the sense of E=mc², yes everything is energy, but to complete that you need to add entropy and the second law of thermo-dynamics - that if energy is equal all around anywhere, it can't do anything whatsoever.

If you complete the science, that assertion becomes pretty meaningless - it's actually energy difference (not energy itself) that is significant.

To get any trancendental meaning out of it, either the term 'energy' has to be abandoned, or the whole thing has to be taken on a Zen basis, by which I mean the contemplation of something that is, in merely rational terms, nonsensical, but feels to be meaningful - so go figure for more enlightenment. I.E. It is a question, not an answer - it offers the opportunity for useful thought, but doesn't, of itself, explain anything.

Of course, a cynic might think that this "explanation" was foisted upon others by those who want to exploit the others' ignorance, but I certainly wouldn't assign you, Dranoel, to either of those camps.  Unfortunately my experience leads me to think that there are many 'gurus' out there whose main aim is to capitalise on their followers ignorance - and many more who are simply ignorant themselves.

f5 (suffering yet more punctuation-squitters)

 

[PDumbledore]

I agree with sweetnpetite on this.

hu?

What does understanding matter have to do with a person's belief in God and whom it may be?

Hi Dranoel,

I really don't want to hurt you as an individual, but I do want to attack the over-simplisticness of that all too often offered half-truth.

Half true, because, in the sense of E=mc², yes everything is energy, but to complete that you need to add entropy and the second law of thermo-dynamics - that if energy is equal all around anywhere, it can't do anything whatsoever.

If you complete the science, that assertion becomes pretty meaningless - it's actually energy difference (not energy itself) that is significant.

To get any trancendental meaning out of it, either the term 'energy' has to be abandoned, or the whole thing has to be taken on a Zen basis, by which I mean the contemplation of something that is, in merely rational terms, nonsensical, but feels to be meaningful - so go figure for more enlightenment. I.E. It is a question, not an answer - it offers the opportunity for useful thought, but doesn't, of itself, explain anything.

Of course, a cynic might think that this "explanation" was foisted upon others by those who want to exploit the others' ignorance, but I certainly wouldn't assign you, Dranoel, to either of those camps.  Unfortunately my experience leads me to think that there are many 'gurus' out there whose main aim is to capitalise on their followers ignorance - and many more who are simply ignorant themselves.

f5 (suffering yet more punctuation-squitters)

 

[PDumbledore]

With or without religion, we all need a personal code of ethics.

f5 (Hoping that helps...)

Yes we do need a set of personal code of ethics. But who's? What may be ethically right to one person, may be wrong to another.

If you go back and read a post by SeaCat, a few before this one, I agree with him. I don't care what you or any other person may do just as long as you don't try to push your point of view on me.

You can be a pagan, you can be a atheist, you can even worship a kumquat, I really don't give a flying flip.

 

[Guest]

.....

 

[sweetnpetite]

Explaining god to a rational mind (or trying to)

I was thinking about this the other day, and I couldn't get online to post it, but I typed it out, with great thought (making some discoveries myself along the way) on my word processor. Find below, my hopefully coherent ramblings, and I hope that they are helpful to you somehow.

I do know what I believe about that God, but - apart from having grasped that it's something completely different, so the above rejection doesn't apply - I realise that I simply don't understand what you're talking about. (That sounds judgemental, but isn't meant that way.)

Let me try to phrase an understandable question (which is hard)...

Clearly you can't tell me 'what' you think God is, but can you tell help me understand what you mean by the word, so that you can think the thought that 'you don't know for sure what God is'?

One part of what you wrote I can easily get alongside of - if what I think it means is what you meant...

Help me follow you in your thoughts.

f5 (bowled over!)

Is there a god and if so what is it?

I believe that there is a force at work in the universe that is beyond our understanding. Religion is a way of organizing the principals of that force into something that humans can comprehend and work within. Its more than just silly stories that primitive people invented because they didn’t understand science or reason. It was born out of experience and observation of the relationships of things, rather than just the material nature of them.

Psychology, philosophy, and sociology are likewise all systems of organizing these unseen forces, using observable phenomenon and creating understanding. Each system uses different terminology but shows a piece of the same truth. It’s only when we get hung up on the terminology and stuck in our earliest observations (believing that the truth is ’unchanging’ and not realizing that our understanding of the truth must be always evolving, because we will never be able to see or comprehend its fullness) that we begin to believe that religions, beliefs and even science are different from each other, and that of course is when we begin to fight over which ‘different’ system is the correct one.

A mind at once both open and critical can see that the systems are not different, and that even the fairies, gods and heroes of days past have their roots in an understanding of these same natural forces rather than an ignorant superstition. (In folklore, fairies live for hundreds of years, this is not arbitrary or simply a projection of a wish for eternal life- the fairies represent the life force of things in nature that have longer life spans than humans, such as trees that live for hundreds of years. They are a visualization of things that can’t be physically scene, sort of like an allegory.)

Science studies things such as the leaves changing colors, but religion and mythology goes beyond even the ’why’ to bigger questions like- what does the changing of leaves tell us about ourselves and our world? But rather than answering the question in specialized words that only some people understand, images and stories are created to illustrate these principals. In a cynical world, we take these images literally and attempt to disprove them, leaving us with scientific explanations that most of us don’t understand. (for the average person, science has made our existence more mysterious rather than less. We have no way of visualizing these principals and this higher abstract thinking is difficult to understand, so it is left to the experts. Most people joke that they can’t even set the clock on there VCR!)

Even Jesus told his messages in parables. An average modern person finding the kingdom of heaven, would never know it because his rational mind would be saying, “hey this isn’t like a king preparing a wedding banquet for his son! (Mathew 21:22) Applying literal thinking, this is easily disproved- and so down goes the entire idea of religion. And a truth (albeit not a ‘literal truth’) is lost. The essence of the message is lost as the message itself is discredited and considered foolish, childish or ‘unscientific.’

As an example, psychologists talk a the ‘id, the ego and the superego.’ But what are they? Are they simply superstition because they don’t exist as solid physical entities? No, because an understanding of id, ego and superego helps the doctor to solve the problems that exist within the human condition. Now lets say we rename the id, ego and superego and call them ‘the inner child, the inner parent, and the talking self.’ This helps us to visualize the id, ego and superego in order to better understand the process. But of course there is no actual physical child living inside of us. If we take it to literally we can disprove psychology and destroy all the potential it has to help people. The same goes for religion. Science can not prove literally the existence of god, because we are looking for god in the metaphors we have created to understand god. We can only understand god by suspending our literal mind and allowing a set of visualizations to show us the underlying truths of our existence, our purpose and our interactions.

To me, our understanding of how the world works is our religion and each of us has a slightly different understanding. Some people’s religion is science, for others it is logic, for some it may even be politics (power, might makes right, ends justify the means, etc.) But an outlook that is completely literal will miss some of the bigger lessons and some of the subtler interactions. And this can create a hollow existence, ignoring all but the surface. This is why people work their whole lives for the physical proof of success and then feel unsatisfied. There literal minds tell them that they should be happy and fulfilled, but they have failed to understand the nature of happiness and fulfillment. These questions can not be answered with a literal mind, because they are not physical concrete or tangible. And we cannot understand the true and complete nature of these things.

By believing in more than what we can see or prove with our literal mind, we gain a *workable* understanding of the nature of our world (which in it’s entirely is beyond our scope) and of concepts that are bigger than ourselves. Through this we can come to see that rather than some tiny insignificant isolated being afloat in a sea of infinity, we are a vital part of the universe. By finding our roll in the universe, and tapping into the greater power of it’s workings we increase our effectiveness, we accomplish more with less effort and we find the happiness and fulfillment we seek. (Jesus spoke of this when he talked about parts of the body arguing over which had a more important function.)

Christianity teaches that sin is (or creates) separation from god. To me, that separation is our belief that we are isolated and god is in one sense ‘everything‘. When we understand our connectedness to all things, we will no longer be separated from god. Salvation (and fulfillment) comes from ‘getting it.’ From knowing that our lives area *not* insignificant in the grand scheme of things- nor are we the center of the universe or the reason for it any more than your foot is the reason for your body.

What we are and what god is, is all the same question. And it can not be answered with a literal ‘prove it to me’ mind. It can only be felt and understood through the power of belief and willingness to believe. That is what gives us religion, mythology, magic, allegory, parables, metaphors, and other systems that create- not god, because god *is*- but images of god that we can visualize and a system within which we can understand “I AM.“

_______________



.

 

[CharleyH]

Still believe:
G-O-D is the symbol that everyone who has posted here believes in.

Apparently, there is also a worldwide God since WE vs. THEY are always fighting eachother on behalf of the meaning of the symbol.

 

[dirtylover]

Re: Explaining god to a rational mind (or trying to)

Is there a god and if so what is it?

Psychology, philosophy, and sociology are likewise all systems of organizing these unseen forces, using observable phenomenon and creating understanding. Each system uses different terminology but shows a piece of the same truth. It’s only when we get hung up on the terminology and stuck in our earliest observations (believing that the truth is ’unchanging’ and not realizing that our understanding of the truth must be always evolving, because we will never be able to see or comprehend its fullness) that we begin to believe that religions, beliefs and even science are different from each other, and that of course is when we begin to fight over which ‘different’ system is the correct one.

Agreed (I think) - I believe that all branches of knowledge are part of the same 'thing'. However, it is necessary for progression of thought that they are played off against each other, because then more is discovered; as long as the mind isn't closed, either because of religious dogma or a scientific/reasoning paradigm.

In folklore, fairies live for hundreds of years

as long as you believe in them, or don't clap your hands, or something...

...images and stories are created to illustrate these principals. In a cynical world, we take these images literally and attempt to disprove them, leaving us with scientific explanations that most of us don’t understand. (for the average person, science has made our existence more mysterious rather than less. We have no way of visualizing these principals and this higher abstract thinking is difficult to understand...

Mmm hmmm, some things should be 'felt' rather than reasoned. However, I also love losing myself in the abstractions of science - science at it's best is art, and gives me the most breath-taking glimpse of what I consider to be God..

Even Jesus told his messages in parables. An average modern person finding the kingdom of heaven, would never know it because his rational mind would be saying, “hey this isn’t like a king preparing a wedding banquet for his son! (Mathew 21:22) Applying literal thinking, this is easily disproved- and so down goes the entire idea of religion. And a truth (albeit not a ‘literal truth’) is lost. The essence of the message is lost as the message itself is discredited and considered foolish, childish or ‘unscientific.’

Is it time to have more updated parables that might better fit into a modern context?

There literal minds tell them that they should be happy and fulfilled, but they have failed to understand the nature of happiness and fulfillment.

The best point I have come across on this thread so far; probably why I started it in the first place in fact...The nature of happiness is something I'm a bit obsessed about - maybe even worth starting a separate thead?

When we understand our connectedness to all things, we will no longer be separated from god.

Yes - connectedness is my favourite buzz word, and this sums exactly what I believe perfectly.

That is what gives us religion, mythology, magic, allegory, parables, metaphors, and other systems that create- not god, because god *is*- but images of god that we can visualize and a system within which we can understand “I AM.“

Thanks for such a thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I think we have come to a similar place, but from different directions

 

[dirtylover]

Still believe:
G-O-D is the symbol that everyone who has posted here believes in.

Apparently, there is also a worldwide God since WE vs. THEY are always fighting eachother on behalf of the meaning of the symbol.

I guess if we all agreed what the symbol meant then there wouldn't be a mystery anymore; perhaps what G-O-D was would be pretty obvious, and we'd lose our sense of wonderment at the world.

 

[Match Made In Heaven]

Re: Re: Explaining god to a rational mind (or trying to)

Thanks for such a thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I think we have come to a similar place, but from different directions

So do I win, lol?

Your last sentance also sort of sums up the theme of my whole peice Coming to the same/similer place but from different directions.

I guess it would be ok to use newer metaphors, as long as you allow others to use theres and realize that they and you are really saying the same thing. That way we can respect the others views instead of killing each other over them and whatnot

 

[CharleyH]

I guess if we all agreed what the symbol meant then there wouldn't be a mystery anymore; perhaps what G-O-D was would be pretty obvious, and we'd lose our sense of wonderment at the world.

actually - if we knew what the symbol G-O-D meant we would gain awe of the world - many have already lost their at wonderment. There would still be mystery, just not preoccupation with meaningless trivialities

 

[ABSTRUSE]

actually - if we knew what the symbol G-O-D meant we would gain awe of the world - many have already lost their at wonderment. There would still be mystery, just not preoccupation with meaningless trivialities

What about the symbol D-O-G? would our beliefs be backwards?

Sorry C, you damaged my brain before....lol

 

[CharleyH]

What about the symbol D-O-G? would our beliefs be backwards?

Sorry C, you damaged my brain before....lol

Poor abs NO! - its still the same symbol - just backwards - the semiotics are all wrong! although since God is symbol of higher and dog is symbol of lower??? Does that make us humans - all OGG's?

God is Ogg? Scratching chin.

 

[Guest]

Omigawd, we're all Oggs? No! I'm Mexican, it's Dios! You are all so chauvinistic.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

p.s. for Russians it's Bog. or Gob? Ha ha ha.

Perdita