What is a god. Atheists either state that the claims made for gods are not credible and therefore not believable or state outright that such things simply do not exist. But what exactly are we arguing against? So what is a god? How many have been defined and how do they differ from each other? Does anyone have a definitive statement that describes the Christian god? If we can establish clearly what we are arguing against then perhaps the arguments will take on new value. Cris
"a" god vs God Generally: "a" god, I think, can be one of many entities or forces. "a" god is personified and worshipped by a people who believe that the given being has supernatural powers or attributes. The personification of a force or entity which is thought to control at least some part of nature or reality. Monotheistically: God, I think, is that which is believed to be "the" perfect, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent creator of all things. The single supreme agency through which can be explained the phenomena of everything.
A god is any number of things Of course, that doesn't help much. A few thoughts on the subject: * Any number of magickers over the years noted the idea of magickal effects coming from "vibrations" which could influence the physical environment. I give this idea some credit, except that I have yet to vibrate a door open from ten feet away as an act of will without stomping until I beat a hole in the floor. However, the sameness of certain things did not strike me until I had dropped out of college; sameness, that is, in a specific sense. To this end, one might theorize that a god is a being of human creation; a manifestation of the energies invested in a limited expression of hope. That a billion people believe in a god might, by this approach, make the god real, though its authority would still be earthly, as such. Lysander Spooner pointed out that no body of people can award to a government any powers that the people did not thitherto possess. This is a simple fact of the nature of artifice, as such, and will actually become easier to justify as an assertion when a hole is punched into it. Right now, it's airtight in my opinion; a record of observation more than a theoretic assertion. Likewise, with notions of vibratory force, we might say that the people cannot award the god any powers which they do not possess beforehand. (Let me preempt a Christian-based objection regarding the healings of Jesus: here we get back into fact versus faith; I'm aware that the Bible says Jesus raised the dead, but it's a boast at worst, an a myth at best until such a resurrection can be demonstrated. Thus, when the people of Christendom, by the vibratory notion, lend enough energy to their god to make it real, they might invest in it the idea of resurrectory power, but they cannot, as noted, demonstrate it as yet, except as an article of faith. * A god can be a psychological quirk. Here I find myself among my theistic forte. Many at Exosci are familiar with my theistic self-classification. I am comfortable with this, though I'll be damned if I can describe its figurehead in any exact terms. Suffice to say that my goddess is well-known as a psychological device; she only visits when I'm tired and alone; she always speaks in my vernacular, and so forth. She writes no laws but those which are self-evident in nature, and claims no authority over my eternal soul. The point of it is that I'm well aware that this goddess is a creation of my own, though the philosophy that led me to her accepts this in its own right. But, to be honest, the world simply looks a lot nicer, and feels nicer, when I see clouds dancing instead of swirling according to this or that formula. I have much use for the formulae, but my world is largely aesthetic. Thus, the larger part of my worldly perception has to do with the relationship 'twixt things. My goddess is very nearly a drug, inviting a specific state of mind and therefore a specific electrochemical condition. Music is music. Some of it sounds nice, some of it sucks. Some of it taps something beyond my perception, and there's where the goddess kicks in, giving me a template by which I might assimilate what I perceive until such time as the more rational aspect of my person chooses to engage the objective sense of the music. But it is not the Almighty delivering good rhythm; it is merely a parlor trick to make the world sweeter--after all, a spoonful of sugar .... * I'm a fan of the classic, "God is that than which nothing greater in the Universe can be conceived." I interpret this to mean God=everything. In this sense, the "Universe" becomes the event and arena itself. God becomes the subjective mystery of the whole Universe. From this sense, I can even make heads and tails of the most part of Christianity, but like most of my interpretational methods, such ideas usually are met with resistance to the point of hostility. On a few occasions I have written that oneness with God equals human perpetuity in the Universe, so that we might witness "the end" as such. The more we learn about the Universe, the more we learn about God ... this is an approach which dominates much of my religous waxings at Exosci. * One negation: God is not a paradox. It's a nice claim, though, that God can be a number of fundamentally contradictory things. However, this is the sacrifice of the intellect. To meet the necessary demands of God's existence according to Alpha/Omega templates, we might consider Roger Waters: Time is linear, memory's a stranger, history's for fools, and man is a tool in the hands of the Great God Almighty. Time becomes a fiction without a beginning or an end. Without time there is no change, and we could not even perceive the illusion of change or growth; even perception requires the passing of time. Thus: What came before the Big Bang? Stay tuned, the answer is coming one of these days. Thus: What came before God? One cannot avoid this question without rendering time itself a fancy of arrogance. God cannot be timeless or eternal; much like the people, God cannot invest in his creations something that he is not. As far as paradoxical impossibilities go, much of that problem is the perception of the human. Certain words we use to describe processes have specific definitions. The Christian Bible asserts that nothing is impossible with God; yet the Catholic Encyclopedia makes a wonderful point to consider: it is impossible for God to make a square circle because the words mean two different things. A circle cannot be a square by its fundamental nature. A square cannot be a circle for the same reasons. God has not failed to make a square circle; god has merely operated according to the nature of things. Enough ... for a question to which I have no answer, I have certainly spent a few words. Call it two cents, and we'll see what happens from there. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
With respect to time, the Big Bang theory and universe: If I remember correctly, according to the theory, time did not exist during singularity (pre-bang) and the resulting universe which is the subject of study is actually a mini-verse known as "our" universe or the "observable" universe. As expansive as our universe is, being a fan of the "boundless" universe of everything, I have a difficult time discounting the great "beyond". For all I know, I could just be part of some free-radical floating around in some unknown creature's body. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! God = everything = the boundless universe. A variation of sorts.
If you're going to ask what god is, you might as well ask what god does (or did). For me, the notion of 'god' encapsulates "the being that created the unvierse". This can involve a pantheon rather than an individual, but creation is involved. I believe in the big bang. I also believe that we'll most likely never know what caused that big bang; it's outside the realm of physics. Could we be a free radical, inhabiting the colon of some mysterious extrauniversal being? Quite possibly. Equally, there could be nothing outside the universe. It's also possible that we're a science experiment, and that our universe was indeed created in seven days, albeit by a being who can have no contact with its creation. So: if a god created the universe, it doesn't matter. He'll never affect us (again), and we'll never affect him.
On the other hand If God is the boundless universe which created our mini-verse then we exist with God - through God, with God and in God.
And your colon may now contain all the ingredients necessary for us to be able to witness a big bang in our lifetime.
unexplainable I think gods or god was created through the human mind in order to simplify life and explain the unexplainable. Ancient civilizations had many gods because they had little understanding of what was happening in nature around them. An example could be weather patterns. Several cultures thought that seasonal storms were punishments from gods for not doing what ever they were suppossed to do. In today's society god is pretty much a way of explaining things we do not understand yet and thats the way it has been and probably will continue to be.
Some Guy ... Would you like an Amen or a Hallelujah for that apt summation? And no, sir, I'm not being sarcastic. Welcome to Exosci; we look forward to your insights. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
neither, just a simple nod and understanding of what I was saying, by the way thanks for the welcome, you seem to be a connoisseur yourself at this debate thing.
Lyndale, You have very nicely shown, not just by these words alone, but more by the underlying sentiment and assumption, everything that atheists find objectionable. You have epitomized the fundamental theist attitude of the classic unashamed unsupported assertion. But even though there are only two words we can derive multiple meanings and interpretations. Does “God is” mean that a god simply exists and he is an object independent of us that we may question and examine? Or does “God is” mean that this entity represents everything that there is including us, a whole, the entire ‘everything’, an essential “is-ness”? Or is the phrase perhaps simply an unfinished sentence where at sometime in the future a rational explanation might appear, e.g. God is …x…? Or does it mean something else? But worst is the underlying assumption that this thing exists and is unquestionable and needs no explanation, an arrogant insistence that this concept is obvious and only the stupid would dare to raise questions. But does the phrase “God is” tell us anything factual, or help us understand more of the nature of this concept we call god? No it explains nothing except to reveal an attitude held by some that undermines the foundations on which humanity has based its survival and progress: rational thought and human ingenuity. Cris
The end of Christianity Lyndale, Don’t take my comments as a personal attack on you although I can see how they could be interpreted that way. It is not you I am attacking but the religious principles, thoughts, and ideas that you quote. I hold no hatred for anyone but I have no respect for any religion, especially Christianity. Religions represent a danger to the survival of humanity and I hold the right to defend myself to the bitter end. Christianity maintains that it is the afterlife and God that are the real objectives for humans and that this physical life is just temporary. In other words physical death represents a gateway to heaven. This promotes a fatalistic attitude in people that discourages them from making greater efforts while they are alive to improve the prospects of humanity. They would say, “What is the point of making an effort, we are just here waiting to eventually meet God, nothing else matters”. We have seen significant evidence that Christianity has persecuted scientists throughout the ages, which must certainly have discouraged other potential scientists from useful research. Christianity has effectively and seriously stifled human progress. Progress that might have enabled us to have more cures for the dreadful deceases that we still have in the world, and for which I might one day have to endure and perhaps die. But to this day no one can show that the supernatural exists and no one can show that a god or any gods exist. Christians live in a false world of fictional fantasies with no substance to support their irrational faith. Yet the distraction of people away from rational thought and science is significantly detrimental to the whole of humanity. It is for these basic reasons that I see Christianity as one of the greatest evils ever to face humanity. And I wholeheartedly seek its downfall and destruction. Cris
what is god what i like to now is,who gave the word god?what does this mean?where do we fit in? well i personally think there is some devine being,not in body form,but some sort of energy,immense power thats everywhere,all around us,we crave for knowledge,but unfortunately our brains just cant cope with the knowing,perhaps our desendants will have the answer.
So many questions, so few answers. All that has changed is that over the ages, thanks to our enhanced senses (ex. microscopes and telescopes), the old answers very often are shown to be in error or incomplete. The new `answers' very often prove to be just as in error or incomplete. Does it make any difference that `God' and `Science' are attempts at answers? The only difference as far as I can see is that there has never been a war, never been killing (I hope), because someone does not agree with my `Science'. "There are things that are known and things that are unknown; in between is exploration." Anonymous
What is (a) god? It's easy to understand the need to create gods, when you reflect on people's reaction to misfortunes today. "How could this happen?" "Someone's going to pay for this (crime or accident)!" It seems to be in the human charactar to assume intent behind dramatic events, to assess blame. We're not comfortable with explanation that "stuff" happens, although a slogan expressing a thought something like that was popular a few years back. If there is a God, I'm convinced it is not defined adequately by any creed; no religion has it right. Perhaps he/she/it exists in the seven(?) dimensions we theorize but can't observe. But the faith of a particular group will, at least at one time, have answered a social and psychological need. And each of us is apt to find or develop the god we need for our own view of ourself and the world. Therefor there will be no consensus as to the nature of God.
God Religion and faith answer a fundamental need in the human psyche: self-worth. Under religion, you are the creation of a perfect God, and "he" considers you his son/daughter. Without a God, there is no point to your existence ... no fundamental reason for you to be here, and your death will only be the destruction of a insignificant speck of dust in an ever-expanding universe. Religion says that after this hard life, you'll get to live in a perfect place without all of the hate and misery of this world. It's a nice dream. I wish I could believe it.
