What is god?

[another1]

I'm still going with "god is a three letter word."

Or if you prefer, god is 'dog' spelled backwards.

Or, until you know what god is you can't know if god is god, or just 'dog' spelled backwards.

Dogs are tireless servants of women and men. Sitting patiently awaiting orders with loving eyes that are more fearful than loving if you ask me. So eager to please. Glancing quick to gauge our mood and rolling over to be cute in order to avoid being smacked with the news paper that they couldn't possibly read, or even understand the purpose of other than discipline and pain. What good have they actually done other than in early human civilization. They hunted aside man and shared bacteria when they snuggled and spooned women and men during the cold times when the white walkers came. In that sense there would be no man without dog. Dog is why man is here. Not "why" man is here but definitely why man is here. God is man's best friend dude and so is dog. In Greek Palindrome means running back, just like dogs always seem to do. Get the ball, run back... all day until they die of dehydration in some cases. How ironic that was before I forgot about it in a moment. God could be a palindrome in many senses and you stimulated more than one of mine when you mentioned it. Palindrome would be a badass name for Deconversionism. Get some wooden plates for that puppy because that is a thirsty winner. Lap that right up they would. I can hear it now..."I worship Palindrome, my brother, I get free lettuce on mine". You made me listen to I Palindrome I by TMBG with that post, so thank you.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Hey another1, do you serve dressing with those word salads?

 

[another1]

Yes good sir and beware if allergic to nuts! :sick001:

 

[WAB]

Flea 1: Hey, do you believe in Dog?
Flea 2: Hell no, if Dog existed, there'd be evidence! No evidence, no Dog!
Flea 1: Yeah, me neither!

 

[another1]

Flea 1: Hey, do you believe in Dog?
Flea 2: Hell no, if Dog existed, there'd be evidence! No evidence, no Dog!
Flea 1: Yeah, me neither!

Yes the blood of their Savior nourishes those dirty fleas and they bicker over where the hell the blood came from. They have to make abstractions the while digging in their little teeth in and making larvae that will someday ask the same pointless question. The blood is the blood. They can jump ten feet in the air and die or find a new host, but blood is blood. Fleas eat each other and the 4th flea let them do it willingly, since he came from the host of hosts. Dear God I am seriously itching now but God bless your day William, good things will happen.

I froze bugs when I was bored once and a roach instinctively ejected this oval thing at the moment of freezing death. I think it was an egg pouch. I never looked up what it could have been because that made pretty good sense. A flea was moving slightly after thawing from a full freeze. Spiders can't hack it but they will freak out when slowly freezing. Every insect seemed to know it was about to die. I thought it was interesting that the roach had an escape pod, as if saying the south will rise again. I used cheap instruments and have no data other than fun memories. Bug battles are also fun on a boring day. All you need is a jar and some bugs. The winner is usually a tiny spider. The tiny spider waits at the top of the jar and at the right moment repels down, injects venom and repels back up to wait for dinner. Larger bugs will kill the small spiders but the larger bugs die soon after. I consider that a win for the little spider. Have you ever wondered what the rhyme about the spider and the water spout actually means? I think there are different versions, but resurrection seems to be the theme of course. I always thought there was a little more to it than that and would like input. Nursery rhymes have satanic spells laced in the tunes and words, of course. Who wouldn't agree with that? Who wouldn't agree that nursery rhymes make us who we are in many ways? As for bug battles, I always let the winner at the end of the day go free. What a story to tell other bugs that would be! "Some enormous Godlike thing threw me into this hellish death jar and laughed at me while I repeatedly fought other bugs until I was victor" would be a hard sell and would probably get a bug killed for telling the story. There would be a jar conspiracy story among the grass dwellers, like the hyper intelligent reptilian earth crust dwellers or things of that haunting sort. I'm not going to spend an hour editing to make this an actual post because all I'll have to omit 90% of it. I think flea 2 is bound for eternal damnation so I'll go with that being the point. Maybe make a thread about flea 2 being born void of the actual ability to have faith. Would the lack of the actual physiological ability to have faith be sin, or just a severe disability? I'm waiting for the thread about that one. Maybe the warm blood of the host could drip into a thread somewhere in science about the autistic spectrum and atheism. From there maybe "equal rights for those who have no ability to express faith due to lacking a component of the mind". I'll compile "proof" for that one, since there actually is. As a weak sinner who admits it, I have little time to do those things but I assure you the proof is there. Maybe someone smarter can add that up for an argument. The precise information is available. God Bless!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Does God not like paragraph breaks or something? It's impossible to read your post.

 

[WAB]

I think flea 2 is bound for eternal damnation so I'll go with that being the point.

I don't think I can hang with you on that, another 1. Could be you and I are not on the same Dog?

 

[Atheos]

Another1, if you want to be read please consider using the occasional paragraph break. However, to address a question you raised:

Why would I have the ability to ask what God is, if there isn't one?

The answer is simple: The ability to ask a question does not guarantee there is an answer to that question. It does give us the ability to search for the answer but sometimes the answer is not to be found. Ponce De Leon searched for the answer to the question "Where is the fountain of youth?" Does that imply that there actually is such a fountain? What is Dracula? What is Santa Claus? What is the Loch Ness Monster? What is Sasquatch? What is Superman? Where did the space aliens come from who abducted Barney and Betty hill in 1961? We can ask the questions, sure. None of them are likely to have real answers.

 

[another1]

I'm sorry Tom, I was in a hurry to be nonsensical that day. I just tried to read it and couldn't understand it either. The last part was confrontational, which I regret. I did understand the last part, but cyber-regret it.

Atheos, the fact I can ask a question from nothing is a mystery. I understand your point and don't deny that you're right, however I am going to have to bring up the questioner and the enabler. Where do they come from? Here before me is everything, and it came from nothing according to a scientist. Nothing to everything and then experienced by an organic machine that goes into trances 8 hours a day to wake up and ask again. I have found no satisfactory explanation for 99.8% of what I'm experiencing so I do the rational thing in my situation and activate my faith receptors and chemicals in a gothic building. It helps me make progress and after what I've experienced in what nature has gestured when I talk to God, I am convinced there is a God. Maybe refer a book that relates to this and I will get back to you in a week. We are on different pages now due to my wandering, so forgive me. This is an important topic to me and I take it seriously. God Bless.

 

[Kharakov]

Here before me is everything, and it came from nothing according to a scientist.

I don't think anyone would postulate that everything came from nothing. Instead, nothing came from something.

 

[Atheos]

Another1, I too continue to question everything I know and understand that I don't have the answers. But unlike you I don't assume a god is the answer to the questions I don't yet understand. I feel like that gives me a decided advantage in the area of confirmation bias, as I'm not looking for proof that I'm right about whatever god I happen to believe in. Instead I have the freedom to continue letting the evidence speak for itself. If it turns out that evidence finally does favor the existence of a god I'm fine with that too. I'm not against any god or gods, I just have yet to see any evidence that such a thing (or things) exist.

If you believe that science teaches that "everything came from nothing" you might be well served to take time to educate yourself a bit about what science actually does teach. The short answer is "science doesn't know." There are many candidate theories that have been proposed about the origin of the universe. The one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that the evidence clearly shows that simple stuff grew increasingly more complex over time due to interactions of matter and energy. The early universe consisted of little else besides hydrogen. Over time heavier elements came into existence through processes we understand. Eventually planets with lots of water and carbon were possible. Life emerged on our planet billions of years ago in very simple form and slowly evolved over time into more complex life forms. Humans are one of many current members of the community of life on this planet and we happen to have intelligence that so far we have not seen matched by any other species.

Given the evidence then it seems much more reasonable to presume that simple things can become more complex over time. What is not supported by evidence is the possibility that the single most complex life form imaginable - a god with unlimited knowledge and unlimited power could exist for all eternity without ever having had to learn anything or evolve from a simpler form of life or rely on any external source of fuel for its considerable power. This makes absolutely no sense.

Because of this, positing a god as a solution to the question of "Where did it all come from?" answers nothing. It simply replaces one question with another, for now one must wonder where this god came from. If the answer is "he just is," then why can't the answer to the existence of the universe be "it just is?" At least we have evidence the universe exists.

Until there is actual evidence of the existence of this god the reasonable thing to do is continue investigating the evidence in hopes of finding an answer.

 

[another1]

Another1, I too continue to question everything I know and understand that I don't have the answers. But unlike you I don't assume a god is the answer to the questions I don't yet understand. I feel like that gives me a decided advantage in the area of confirmation bias, as I'm not looking for proof that I'm right about whatever god I happen to believe in. Instead I have the freedom to continue letting the evidence speak for itself. If it turns out that evidence finally does favor the existence of a god I'm fine with that too. I'm not against any god or gods, I just have yet to see any evidence that such a thing (or things) exist.

If you believe that science teaches that "everything came from nothing" you might be well served to take time to educate yourself a bit about what science actually does teach. The short answer is "science doesn't know." There are many candidate theories that have been proposed about the origin of the universe. The one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that the evidence clearly shows that simple stuff grew increasingly more complex over time due to interactions of matter and energy. The early universe consisted of little else besides hydrogen. Over time heavier elements came into existence through processes we understand. Eventually planets with lots of water and carbon were possible. Life emerged on our planet billions of years ago in very simple form and slowly evolved over time into more complex life forms. Humans are one of many current members of the community of life on this planet and we happen to have intelligence that so far we have not seen matched by any other species.

Given the evidence then it seems much more reasonable to presume that simple things can become more complex over time. What is not supported by evidence is the possibility that the single most complex life form imaginable - a god with unlimited knowledge and unlimited power could exist for all eternity without ever having had to learn anything or evolve from a simpler form of life or rely on any external source of fuel for its considerable power. This makes absolutely no sense.

Because of this, positing a god as a solution to the question of "Where did it all come from?" answers nothing. It simply replaces one question with another, for now one must wonder where this god came from. If the answer is "he just is," then why can't the answer to the existence of the universe be "it just is?" At least we have evidence the universe exists.

Until there is actual evidence of the existence of this god the reasonable thing to do is continue investigating the evidence in hopes of finding an answer.

Atheos I like how you don't belittle me when essentially owning me. That was refreshing and made sense but we are still stuck in this void. Your personal research and journey to whatever it is you're headed to is undeniably a God by definition, even if it isn't the all knowing cool type of God. The transcendental thing that is undeniable and apparently indescribable to you must be defined as a God.

I like God. Parts of my mind are stimulated when I worship him. I've always hated that mankind calls it a "him", and I've always been frustrated that we say MANkind. Assholes if ya ask me. I was in Church yesterday concentrating very hard in prayer and Pantheistic thoughts invaded as always. I think the rooms of people at prayer are pretty intense. Most people are selfishly praying. Even if they are asking help for someone they love. They all want the same damn thing. I was approached by what I can confidently call a very stupid person and he managed to form the words "yo put some alley boy on this for me and give it back next week". Apparently he doesn't know the basics of getting music online. I listened to this "alley boy" after filling his $150 ear wax covered device. I accidentally put some other suggestive music on it in hopes of saving his taste in music. Alley Boy is a demon. That is all I can say about the young man. Alley boy wants me to get gold, diamonds, shapely women and nice cars. Alley boy wants me to get it all quick, because I only live once and money is apparently God. Disgusting and part of a very large conspiracy that I can't even get into because I'm supposed to be talking about God.

A scientist will preach the big bang. Everything came from nothing. That is what a scientist will tell you. I think I'm correct about that one. I don't talk to many scientists but I try their methods. I know what is taboo and unspeakable, as well as unfundable. I think that a person who believes everything science has brought forth is stupid. I like the method and I like the meat and potato aspect but beware of asking where all of this crap around us came from. The funniest book I have read lately is The Science Delusion. I laughed and agreed from first to last page. When I discovered the Morphic Resonance theory years ago, my life changed. I had a framework in Sheldrake's rhetoric and general understanding of nature. I considered my mind free of my body for years. Sheldrake is a scientist who is pretty much hated. There are a lot of coughs at his lectures. So many that it nearly breaks his concentration. He has been stabbed during a lecture, actually. An obscure scientist like that would never have entered my life hadn't a member of this board told me to look him up. I already knew about Morphic Resonance (a paranormal influence by which a pattern of events or behavior can facilitate subsequent occurrences of similar patterns) when I added my own ideas to bring a God into focus. I reached a point during entheogenic research when I said that it does not really matter, and If I did understand God, I would cease to exist.

Keeping in mind it did not matter, I joined a Church full of decent people and adopted their behavior. I am happy now, and free to continue my research, cloaked in my small community by a sense of acceptance and generosity. People will do a lot for you if you belong to a Church. That isn't preaching, that is just how it is. Pan out to a larger view and rewind history and you might say that I am submitting to an evil that is destroying society. Sure, I understand that some people are a little more well informed than others. Some are born into it, some are scared into it and some are just fuhking weak. Whatever, it doesn't matter now. Go to church and have love in your community or don't. Honestly I think half of the people in my Church do not believe in God. They believe in the ritual and fellowship, but I sense things and I feel the empty when they are near me.

Ask me what God is a few years ago and I'd tell you that God is the possibility of God, or that God is an incurable sickness in our intellect. A parasite that makes a host of intelligent beings and plays dead while the host serves the parasite - or is on the surface doing the same thing in an opposite way, yielding the same result. Ask me now and I have a safe, widely accepted and sane answer, Jesus Christ. I do not know how that can be considered sane but it somehow is where I'm from. A man endowed with magic from the heavens or just a very cool guy who died for his coolness. Either way it does not matter because the ball is in motion. One man did all of this. Was he God or was he just very cool we won't know until we die, and possibly not even then. I choose to behave as he did until then. I forget the point but I'll say what I said to myself decades ago that if God is something I can't get out of my head, God is of course real. The need to know is best quenched by serving what is unknown in my case. I made my chair real before I sat in it, right? The matter was not there and in that form before I turned my head and commanded it to be there. Same goes with God. Science could easily prove God if science could prove that the human mind is master of all matter. It would help to prove that consciousness is an entity and not a trait or function. It isn't inside an organic brain, which is basically a receiver and a transmitter. So many things. Too many things. Pick one. God Bless.

 

[WAB]

I'm with you on just about all of this, another1. Except that I still don't go to church. I've a literary friend - who just had his first literary publication (he publishes routinely in and particular to his profession) - who is encouraging me to visit an Episcopal church, and even sent me a link to one in Lake Havasu, where I live, but I still have cold feet.

I and my brother are both Christians, but of no specific order. I am a by-the-seat-of-my-pants kind of Christian, and a lot of what you said in your post is very similar to how my brother and I converse about Jesus Christ. I think I am slightly more 'orthodox' than he because he is keen on the theory that Jesus didn't die on the Cross but survived, married Mary Magdalen, and that whole thing. I don't hang with that theory at all, since Christ's death and atonement are to my mind indispensable and crucial.

To me, Jesus was God's more feminine side in the flesh, here on Terra Firma. That may sound odd being that Jesus was a man and is called the Son of God, etc. I get this 'feeling' from Julian of Norwich, who refers to the 'mothering' nature of the Lord. ie: God would be a Being that transcends anything like gender, or, Who encompasses all that we know of gender. To grok what I mean, think of that Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk gets divided into two individuals through some accident in the transport beam. One Kirk is an alpha male, all reptilian, prone to violence, aggressive, keen on sex and domination, while the other Kirk is the softer side, the beta Kirk, gentle, effeminate, nurturing - he is shown holding and stroking the 'better half' of a cat that went through the same division. Even though that program is frequently maligned by sci-fi fans and the general public alike, its writers were quite intelligent and most of the first two seasons dealt with very weighty philosophical topics.

I digress: Christ to me is perfectly captured in Mel Gibson's Passion, in the opening scene in Gethsemane. I have a difficult time sitting through the scourging scene, and I agree with many of Gibson's detractors who say the scene is far too brutal and graphic, not to mention over-long, to do the film credit. But Christ, as portrayed by the beautiful and gifted Jim Caviezel, in the first moments of the film, nails it, at least for me, particularly when Christ heals the Roman soldier whom Peter has de-eared. He is speaking to Peter while looking into the eyes of the soldier, and this moment crystallizes Jesus Christ for me: the Christ I revere and love in my heart, and Whom I believe has captured my heart (though five years ago I would have sneered at anyone saying such a thing - and the proof of my words here should be in the archives).

The main problem for me with Christianity, with the Gospels, and with the larger part of Christian theology, is the concept of hell and damnation. I simply cannot reconcile a loving Father, an inconceivably intelligent Being, with eternal punishment. I was flipping through an illustrated 'Inferno' yesterday and all that medieval, Dantean nastiness just leaps right out at me as being diametrically opposed to love, compassion, and forgiveness. I can't accept a literal hell, never will, and have prepared myself for the possibility that this very denial of something so central to Christianity could very well be the mark of my true character (notice I used the scary word 'mark').

I do not approve of the idea of eternal damnation, nor do I think I could ever find a way to have it make sense to me. I've had vehement arguments with Calvinists who tell me that I must simply accept, whether I approve or not; but how could such a thing be done? The very God and Christ I love would know that acceptance of such a thing is not possible for me - at least with this current brain of mine. The only way I could 'accept' the idea of conscious, sentient beings suffering eternally would be to become a different person altogether.

My notion of Christianity informs me that, rather than existing forever in bliss, I have a duty to be with those who are suffering, to give them whatever solace or comfort I can; or to simply be among them, as Jesus went among those who suffered, to share in their lowly station and to be as they were. As a follower of Christ, I see no other option.

Peace and Love to you.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Can we get back to the OP please? We now have to believers here and neither of them is ready to answer that so important question: What is God.

This is an essential question. Unless this term is defined any other question on wether this god exists, or what (s)he is called or what (s)he wants etc.. is pointless.

 

[WAB]

Dutch labrat:

Not to be argumentative without purpose: but it seems to me that another1 and myself have discussed at quite some length about what we believe "God" to be. Quite frankly, I don't understand your saying that the two believers here are not ready to answer the OP. I believe we have, to the best of our ability.

But, to go further, and to comply with your complaint (or observation):

"God" is just a word. It has absolutely no real bearing on any Being or Entity Who might be the Prime Mover, the Creator, of the universe and all that it contains. When I say no bearing, I mean Whoever this Creator might be (if such a Creator exists) does not now, or has She ever, given much concern to the words homo sapiens use to refer to Her.

The word "God", or god, as atheists are keen on typing, only has significance to English language speakers. It is useful insofar as it is expedient to the discussion of a higher power or Being, which may or may not exist.

Is that sufficient to answer the OP? If not, I will try again. But you will have to explain why my answer is not sufficient, or I will not know how to proceed.

If you are suggesting that we believers are obliged to define God in such a way as can be agreeable to atheists, then I can only say that such a definition is impossible. I'd recommend reading Anselm, Aquinas, the early masters, who "defined" God as well as anyone currently alive can possibly do. Don't bother reading Calvin, however, as his definition was a grave insult to God, as I understand God to be. Besides that, he got much of his theology from Lactantius, who wrote about God LONG before Calvin, and who had a finer, albeit flawed, grasp of God. These are only my opinions, bear in mind, and I DO NOT expect anyone to give a tinker's damn about my opinions. Least of all God, Who chastens me every single day, and every time I open my trap.

 

[WAB]

*deleted stupid post. What I did was I responded to a post I had forgotten I had already responded to, and then made a botch of that!

I need therapy, but the psychologist who was assigned to me by Mohave Mental Health held her hand up and quieted me every time I tried to explain myself to her. All she was concerned with was my 'alcohol problem', which is not even a problem, as I'm an occasional drinker and can't drink more than a few beers now without falling asleep, which she would have understood, had she allowed herself to listen to me!

So, I bailed on my lithium and on my treatment at MMH. Back to start, as Layne Staley once said...

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Dutch labrat:

Not to be argumentative without purpose: but it seems to me that another1 and myself have discussed at quite some length about what we believe "God" to be.

Yes, you have discussed about what you believe but you never produced a useful definition. A definition to be workable in philosophy must limit the meaning of the term. It must be possible to take this definition to a subject and determine objectively if it is within this definition or not. Without this any debate can easily be run aground with semantic meanderings or using hypermobile goalposts.

My main gripe with religions philosophy and apologetics is exactly this, the inability (if not pure refusal) to define the terms discussed followed by a merry-go-round avoiding any argument without engagement. Not only is this not philosophy it is blatantly disingenuous and an insult to any intellect.

This is what you are doing here:

"God" is just a word. It has absolutely no real bearing on any Being or Entity Who might be the Prime Mover, the Creator, of the universe and all that it contains. When I say no bearing, I mean Whoever this Creator might be (if such a Creator exists) does not now, or has She ever, given much concern to the words homo sapiens use to refer to Her.

That is not an attempt to open a fair debate, it is childish sweep of the arm over the game board. You even define God as the main argument used by apologists, how is that for a blatant set-up for circularity? Followed by (are you kidding?) a definition by pointing where you can't even be bothered to point but refer to a pointing that as yet may or not may happen.

This is precisely why I can't take apologetics serious.

 

[WAB]

Since you seem to have misread or misunderstood practically everything I wrote, I don't believe it will be profitable for either of us to continue this discussion.

What you need to realize is precisely that^. This is NOT a formal debate, nor are we professional philosophers! We are members of the Peanut Gallery. At least I am. I take from your username that you're a scientist? Sorry if I assume too much. Perhaps you are a professional philosopher as well. I don't know.

I don't care for your assumptions that I'm intentionally trying to forestall discussion, or to do something 'childish'. If you can read English ably, which you appear to be able to do, your intelligence should inform you that I am hardly childish, and that I do not enjoy playing the kind of infantile games you accuse me of.

If you'd like a rational discussion, please do continue.

If it's a formal debate you're looking for, you won't get one out of me, as I have zero experience with formal debate and would lose quite soundly.

Open your heart and mind, and please don't respond to me if it's going to be in that same mean-spirited vein. If such a response comes from you, I will read it, but I will not respond.

Peace!

 

[WAB]

The troof®:

Very few people can define God to another person's total satisfaction, and I'm not in that set. I'm a member of a much different set: the set of autodidacts who think they have something of value to share with ejumacated people. It could possibly be that that thing of value is my poetry, and that alone. I'm a damn good poet (been told so by at least one highly acclaimed poet, Tim Murphy, and others of auspicious rank), but maybe I'm not cut out to stand on a box, or in a pulpit?

Could be.

 

[Kharakov]

Can we get back to the OP please? We now have to believers here and neither of them is ready to answer that so important question: What is God.

So, bitch, I have to ask. What is you?

Specifically define your self. Although you cannot use anything that you define as your self to define your self, because it must be something that we all agree upon. Wow- "mus" is not spell checked. interesting....