Who?What Is God?

[Age]

Also, not how I answer questions, whereas you do not.

Wot

Notice.

Notice how I answer questions, whereas you do not.

[Eodnhoj7]

As I approach the twilight of my life (I am 80) and the day comes ever closer when I will meet my Maker: I find myself contemplating the concept of God. And that is what God is: a concept, an idea, a universal being who is everywhere at the same time. And it is that very abstractness that makes it hard to comprehend who God is.

Ordinary mortals have a difficult time grasping the reality of a formless, invisible, omnipresent and omnipotent divine being. They need symbols – idols, icons, crucifixes - that they can see and touch and worship. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans needed symbols to explain the mysteries of nature and the intricacies of the human psyche that they could not comprehend. And so, they invented gods like Osiris and Apollo and Athena; giving each one an attribute that would rationalize their ignorance and let them off the hook, so to speak. The subsequent world religions amalgamated the pagan gods into one Supreme Being whom they named God, or Allah or Jehovah.

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus’s departure from the earth, his apostles and disciples carried on his message and teachings; and essentially stuck to the script. However, as the early Christian church grew in size and influence, they believed that they need not restrict themselves to being the stewards of Christ; they could obtain real power by posing as the sole interpreters of Christ’s message. Jesus had to portrayed as the Son of God, so perfect that he could not possibly be just human. This despite the fact – according to some Biblical scholars – that Jesus himself did not claim divinity during His sojourn on earth. To start with, they handpicked four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which served their purpose. They also ignored – and virtually banished – some other contemporary gospels that did not conform to the message they wished to convey. To consolidate and perpetuate their power, the clergy proclaimed themselves as God’s representatives on earth – a view that prevails even today, particularly among Catholics; although much less so than in the Middle Ages, when the threat of religious sanctions like excommunication was so terrifying that the general populace was completely cowed down. To be sure, the recent revelations about pedophile priests have shown that if these worthies were indeed God’s representatives on earth, then God has chosen very poorly.

Another tactic the Church employed to consolidate their power was GUILT. I have often wondered why – despite the many wonderful teachings and miraculous events of Jesus’ life – the most potent and prevalent symbol of Christ is the method of his execution. It is almost as if Christians need to be constantly reminded that their Lord and Saviour died for their sins – and therefore they owe Him, big time. Indeed, the concept of Original Sin has been a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Church, almost since its inception. We are all sinners – and who alone can absolve us of our sins? You got it.

I would like to make it clear that I am using Christianly only as an example. Right from the time of the ancient Egyptians, religion – or gods, as they called them – have been suborned by self-styled priests. Priests (or novices) train in seminaries or madrassas or whatever, where they are taught by other priests. And those priests are trained by…you get the picture. I am still trying to figure out where God enters into this equation. Do we really need interpreters or intermediaries to understand the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Avesta? Isn’t the word of the God clear enough? And which version of God is being addressed by the ubiquitous rituals and ceremonies – of which we are so enamoured? Let’s face it. Most of us have performed pujas or masses and so on (which themselves are manmade) in expectation of a quid pro quo – a promotion or a cure or whatever. Very few of us offer prayers merely for the exaltation of communicating with our Maker.

Which brings me back to my original question: who is God. Is He some benevolent, merciful, all-seeing entity who exudes only goodness and light? Is He an all powerful being who controls every aspect of our existence? If He is indeed all powerful and good, why does he permit atrocities like wars and the Holocaust; and permit one group of humans to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on another group of humans. Does Satan really exist, or is he an excuse we made up for evil behaviour? It’s the devil who is making me do terrible things – not really my responsibility. And what happens when we shuffle off this mortal coil? Do God and Satan compete for our souls? Or did God grant us free will so that we alone are responsible for our actions, both good and bad. Like Yul Brynner famously declared in The King and I; is a puzzlement.

The deepest God people know is the experience(s) which drive them to act or reflect for experience is the power over all consciousness. The deepest experience one can have is an awareness for by awareness do we know. And this knowledge? It is distinction for all things are by being distinct. Maybe God is unknowable, but if one makes the distinction of God being unknowable than there is a distinction of God "being unknowable" thus relegating God as not fully beyond grasp.

Can we really fully grasp our experiences? No, and yet there power cannot be doubted without relegating the doubt to the deepest experience of what we know, what we are. Thus what we know is paradox within paradox and from this reality becomes less of a thing in the traditional static sense and more of a process. If God truly "is" than God is process of transformation, an ineffable reality that makes sense only in accords to appearance and yet of depths so subtle little if anything can be grasped.

[Age]

you can only find what is actually irrefutably True, and know that It is irrefutably so, by starting from what is actually irrefutably True, only, and only 'looking at' what is actually irrefutably True, alone.

LOL --- even logic itself has "assumptions".

Here, 'we' can clearly see, once more, how assuming is, again, preventing 'this one' from finding what is actually irrefutably True.

If you had ever taken "symbolic logic" you would realize that even it had "axioms"

Lol ' Taken 'symbolic logic' '. Obviously 'this' is not what 'this one' actually means, but that did not stop it from presenting some thing that is not just not True but which is also not even possible.

Now, one does not have to 'take' a monetary paid, nor even a monetary free, course in 'symbolic logic' to know and recognize that even 'it' has 'axioms'. Just like one does not also have to 'take a course' to realise and know that 'axioms' can be a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.

Once upon a time (pre 19th Century) it was assumed that the axioms of the formal systems in use (geometry, numbers, etc.) were self evident truths. Only then did people begin trying to prove that.

So, once more, 'we' have another great example of how and why starting with and from 'assumptions' can lead you human beings so quickly, and so far, astray. Therefore, with this further proof from "mikenovack" 'we' can better see and understand why it is much more sensible and wiser to also only 'look at' what is irrefutably True, only, and always.

The method was replace one or more axioms with a "silly" alternative, hoping to prove the result would be nonsense. Surprise, the result was simply a different formal system, otherwise consistent (and in some cases useful).

So what I am saying is with a question like this the project is to IDENTIFY what you call "irrefutably True, and know that It is irrefutably so, by starting from what is actually irrefutably True, only, and only 'looking at' what is actually irrefutably True, alone.

So, what is 'the question', exactly, which you call 'a question like this', here?

And, if you still do not yet know how to distinguish between what is 'actually irrefutably True' from what is just called 'true', then okay.

Now, if you would like to come to learn how to distinguish between the two, then let 'us' have a discussion.

I am calling these your axioms. Might I humbly suggest if they really were "irrefutably true" you should easily be able to convince me of that. Or shouldn't really ave to.

I am not even going to try to 'convince' you of any thing, however, if you are open and want to learn how you can distinguish between what is 'actually irrefutably True' from everything else, then let us proceed.

And, you are right, you 'should' not have to be convinced of what is 'irrefutably True', you 'should' already know how to differentiate 'It' from other claims. By the way it would be more helpful if 'we' removed the 'should' word, here, and replaced it with a more truthful words like, 'it would be better' ...

But if you mean "irrefutably true" because you believe them so and when challenged I can't DISPROVE them, that's another kettle of fish.

Here, 'we' have another example of just being completely open, and then asking a clarifying question, 'this one' has, again, asked 'a question' from pre-assumed perspective.

No, I do not mean 'irrefutably true' because I believe them, at all.

And, if you and others can not disprove some thing, then 'that thing' is just irrefutably True, anyway.

Sorry, the burden of proof is the other way round.

your presumption in the beginning was Wrong, from the outset, so all the rest is moot, anyway.

With your idea of where burden of proof lies, way, I could disprove JUST by stating the contrary as "irrefutable truth", yours then not true by contradiction, and because now me making the truth claim, you'd have to try to mine.

LOL 'This one' has just provided another prime example of when starting with an 'assumption', making 'a conclusion' on 'one's own assumption', and then worse of all 'believing that ones own made up conclusion' is true, right, accurate, and/or correct can all so easily, simply, and very quickly lead one completely and utterly astray.

[Fairy]

Also, not how I answer questions, whereas you do not.

Wot

Notice.

Notice how I answer questions, whereas you do not.

My God Age, you really must be the most interesting person you’ve ever met.
It’s like you just can’t see past yourself,can you.

[Age]

As I approach the twilight of my life (I am 80) and the day comes ever closer when I will meet my Maker: I find myself contemplating the concept of God. And that is what God is: a concept, an idea, a universal being who is everywhere at the same time. And it is that very abstractness that makes it hard to comprehend who God is.

Ordinary mortals have a difficult time grasping the reality of a formless, invisible, omnipresent and omnipotent divine being. They need symbols – idols, icons, crucifixes - that they can see and touch and worship. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans needed symbols to explain the mysteries of nature and the intricacies of the human psyche that they could not comprehend. And so, they invented gods like Osiris and Apollo and Athena; giving each one an attribute that would rationalize their ignorance and let them off the hook, so to speak. The subsequent world religions amalgamated the pagan gods into one Supreme Being whom they named God, or Allah or Jehovah.

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus’s departure from the earth, his apostles and disciples carried on his message and teachings; and essentially stuck to the script. However, as the early Christian church grew in size and influence, they believed that they need not restrict themselves to being the stewards of Christ; they could obtain real power by posing as the sole interpreters of Christ’s message. Jesus had to portrayed as the Son of God, so perfect that he could not possibly be just human. This despite the fact – according to some Biblical scholars – that Jesus himself did not claim divinity during His sojourn on earth. To start with, they handpicked four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which served their purpose. They also ignored – and virtually banished – some other contemporary gospels that did not conform to the message they wished to convey. To consolidate and perpetuate their power, the clergy proclaimed themselves as God’s representatives on earth – a view that prevails even today, particularly among Catholics; although much less so than in the Middle Ages, when the threat of religious sanctions like excommunication was so terrifying that the general populace was completely cowed down. To be sure, the recent revelations about pedophile priests have shown that if these worthies were indeed God’s representatives on earth, then God has chosen very poorly.

Another tactic the Church employed to consolidate their power was GUILT. I have often wondered why – despite the many wonderful teachings and miraculous events of Jesus’ life – the most potent and prevalent symbol of Christ is the method of his execution. It is almost as if Christians need to be constantly reminded that their Lord and Saviour died for their sins – and therefore they owe Him, big time. Indeed, the concept of Original Sin has been a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Church, almost since its inception. We are all sinners – and who alone can absolve us of our sins? You got it.

I would like to make it clear that I am using Christianly only as an example. Right from the time of the ancient Egyptians, religion – or gods, as they called them – have been suborned by self-styled priests. Priests (or novices) train in seminaries or madrassas or whatever, where they are taught by other priests. And those priests are trained by…you get the picture. I am still trying to figure out where God enters into this equation. Do we really need interpreters or intermediaries to understand the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Avesta? Isn’t the word of the God clear enough? And which version of God is being addressed by the ubiquitous rituals and ceremonies – of which we are so enamoured? Let’s face it. Most of us have performed pujas or masses and so on (which themselves are manmade) in expectation of a quid pro quo – a promotion or a cure or whatever. Very few of us offer prayers merely for the exaltation of communicating with our Maker.

Which brings me back to my original question: who is God. Is He some benevolent, merciful, all-seeing entity who exudes only goodness and light? Is He an all powerful being who controls every aspect of our existence? If He is indeed all powerful and good, why does he permit atrocities like wars and the Holocaust; and permit one group of humans to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on another group of humans. Does Satan really exist, or is he an excuse we made up for evil behaviour? It’s the devil who is making me do terrible things – not really my responsibility. And what happens when we shuffle off this mortal coil? Do God and Satan compete for our souls? Or did God grant us free will so that we alone are responsible for our actions, both good and bad. Like Yul Brynner famously declared in The King and I; is a puzzlement.

The deepest God people know is the experience(s) which drive them to act or reflect for experience is the power over all consciousness.

The deepest God people know is the experience(s) which drive them to act or reflect for experience is the power over all consciousness.

1. There is only One God. There is not a so-called 'deeper God' nor 'shallower God'.

2. Experiences create 'you', 'the person', or 'personality', within a human body, continuously, while the body is breathing, pumping blood, et cetera. Experiences do not 'drive' you people to act or reflect. you are 'driven' by 'the desire to keep living'.

3. Experiences are not some so-called 'power' over all consciousness. Consciousness, Itself, is just aware of all experiences. And, human consciousness is just the awareness in, and from, human bodies.

The deepest experience one can have is an awareness for by awareness do we know.

But, the difference between 'awareness', and, 'Awareness', is already known, but obviously not by 'you', 'the one', here, known as "eodnhoh7".

And this knowledge?

Seemingly absurd statement, and with a question mark at the end of it.

It is distinction for all things are by being distinct. Maybe in these respects God is unknowable, but if one makes the distinction of God being unknowable than there is a distinction of God "being unknowable" thus relegating God as not fully beyond grasp.

Imagine a human 'ego' which has only 'been around' for less than 100 years, compared with an eternal Universe, and the human 'ego' is so blind and stupid that it would actually conclude that some things, like God, for example, are so-called 'unknowable'.

Can we really fully grasp our experiences?

Yes, and very easily so. Quite simply through any or all of the five senses of the human body some 'experiences' are 'gathered', 'collected', and 'stored'.

No, and yet their power cannot be doubted without relegating the doubt to the deepest experience of what we know, what we are.

'you', still, do not yet know what 'we' are. As can be very easily and simply proved True by just asking 'you', 'What are 'we', exactly?'

Thus what we know is paradox within paradox

'you' are, still, not yet even aware of what the word, 'paradox', even means or is even referring to, exactly. And, this is proved True by 'the way' you' use 'that word'.

and from this reality becomes less of a thing in the traditional static sense and more of a process as the thing. If God truly "is" than God is process of transformation, an ineffable reality that makes sense only in accords to appearance and yet of depths so subtle little if anything can be grasped.

Once again 'we', here, have 'another one' who, laughably, believes that because it has yet to come to know some thing, then 'that thing' is so-called 'unknowable'. 'egos' can, literally, be absolutely blind and closed.

[Age]

Wot

Notice.

Notice how I answer questions, whereas you do not.

My God Age, you really must be the most interesting person you’ve ever met.
It’s like you just can’t see past yourself,can you.

What?

you asked me, 'Wot'. Did you understand what I wrote, in 'the way' that I wrote?

If yes, then why write, 'Wot'?

But, if no, then I just Corrected what I wrote, Incorrectly.

Would you have preferred I just left my Incorrect writings, as they were?

If yes, then I suggest do not respond with words like, 'Wot', nor 'What'.

[Age]

It’s like you just can’t see past yourself,can you.

It is 'you' who tells 'another you' that 'you are the One and only One God', right?

If yes, then, to 'you', there is literally no way to see past "yourself" also, correct?

[Fairy]

It’s like you just can’t see past yourself,can you.

It is 'you' who tells 'another you' that 'you are the One and only One God', right?

If yes, then, to 'you', there is literally no way to see past "yourself" also, correct?

I see you are talking to yourself again. The echo chamber is working well. Nothing works, unless you do.

[RWStanding]

There appears to be a presumption that the universe was 'created'. That there is therefore a 'creator'. That 'he' must be omnipotent. And so forth. That does rather limit what god must be, or rather indicates our limited imagination and biased views. Indeed, if 'god' is part of the totality of existence then he, or rather it, is not omnipotent. Or we might assume a god that is a tinkerer within what exists. It is probably impossible to explain the totality of existence, albeit that explanation is the ultimate 'god'. In fact this appears to be a preoccupation with the material world, which has evolved by natural law. Our real 'god' is not material, even by such a name as 'spiritual'. But is about how we use the world - which is ethics and ethical values, good and bad so to say, taken holistically. Our vain habit of selecting a particular value, and measuring our actions by it alone or virtually so, is folly. Nature may have made us somewhat altruistic, which tends us to seek 'nice' solutions to problems. As with many global problems today, which have been so neglected, that the only pragmatic solutions give us a choice of 'evils' in altruist terms.

[Belinda]

There appears to be a presumption that the universe was 'created'. That there is therefore a 'creator'. That 'he' must be omnipotent. And so forth. That does rather limit what god must be, or rather indicates our limited imagination and biased views. Indeed, if 'god' is part of the totality of existence then he, or rather it, is not omnipotent. Or we might assume a god that is a tinkerer within what exists. It is probably impossible to explain the totality of existence, albeit that explanation is the ultimate 'god'. In fact this appears to be a preoccupation with the material world, which has evolved by natural law. Our real 'god' is not material, even by such a name as 'spiritual'. But is about how we use the world - which is ethics and ethical values, good and bad so to say, taken holistically. Our vain habit of selecting a particular value, and measuring our actions by it alone or virtually so, is folly. Nature may have made us somewhat altruistic, which tends us to seek 'nice' solutions to problems. As with many global problems today, which have been so neglected, that the only pragmatic solutions give us a choice of 'evils' in altruist terms.

I think that the only pragmatic solutions give us a choice of 'evils' in altruist terms and our psyches are such that best of those is Buddhist.

[Age]

There appears to be a presumption that the universe was 'created'.

The Universe is 'in creation', always. If the Universe 'was' 'created', then that is only in 'the way' that 'the Universe' is in, in the continual, 'NOW'.

The Universe is obviously continually changing and so It, obviously, could not all have been 'created' all at once upon a time. But, in every moment the Universe was 'created', in the sense, that, how the Universe is 'NOW', then It was 'created' in 'this way', which do not forget is always changing'. The Universe is 'in creation' and thus never 'was created'.

That there is therefore a 'creator'.

Since the Universe is always 'in creation', Itself, in the eternal 'NOW', then 'the Creator', of the Universe', is It Self. And, considering that the 'Universe' is defined as, Everything, Totality; All-there-is, then this means there could not be any 'other' thing that could be 'creating' the continually changing, or different, Universe.

That 'he' must be omnipotent. And so forth.

The Creator Universal/God is, obviously, not a "he".

And, if absolutely any one thinks or believes that God is, or even 'could be' male gendered, then that is a sure sign of just how simply and easily you human beings can be fooled and deceived.

Now, of course, the Universe, Itself, actually is omnipotent.

That does rather limit what god must be, or rather indicates our limited imagination and biased views.

That God is, supposedly, limited by 'what must be', in your human beings' imagination, is, itself, just more human being limited imagination.

As for your own limited imagination and biased views, then that is what you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, do have, but, clearly, do not 'have to' have.

Indeed, if 'god' is part of the totality of existence then he, or rather it, is not omnipotent.

Why did you even begin to assume that God, Itself, was only a 'part of the Totality of existence'?

God, by definition, could never be a part of 'Totality', Itself. God could only be 'Totality', Itself. That is, if you human beings want to insist that God is 'omnipotent'.

Or we might assume a god that is a tinkerer within what exists.

you could, but why would you want to assume any thing that is, obviously, totally absurd, and contradictory.

It is probably impossible to explain the totality of existence, albeit that explanation is the ultimate 'god'. In fact this appears to be a preoccupation with the material world, which has evolved by natural law.

But, explaining 'Totality', Itself, or what you call, 'the totality of existence', is actually not just possible but very simple and easy to do, as well.

Our real 'god' is not material, even by such a name as 'spiritual'.

Again, the Mind, which is always open and knowing, is just God, the 'Creator', in the invisible sense.

But is about how we use the world - which is ethics and ethical values, good and bad so to say, taken holistically.

And, it is through the very Thing, which already knows Right/good, from, Wrong/bad is the Mind, Itself.

Our vain habit of selecting a particular value, and measuring our actions by it alone or virtually so, is folly.

If it was not already known why you adult human beings base your behavior on your own particular and individual past experiences, then one could wonder why you adult human beings do measuring your behaviors on your own individual chosen values, alone.

Nature may have made us somewhat altruistic, which tends us to seek 'nice' solutions to problems.

Considering that the only 'problems', in Life, are 'the ones' caused by you human beings, alone, then you human beings have not been made by Nature/the Universe/God, Itself, to know and find 'nice' solutions, but to uncover the actual Right, Accurate, and Correct solutions instead.

As with many global problems today, which have been so neglected, that the only pragmatic solutions give us a choice of 'evils' in altruist terms.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

If it was not already known why you adult human beings base your behavior on your own particular and individual past experiences, then one could wonder why you adult human beings do measuring your behaviors on your own individual chosen values, alone.

The above is one of your several incorrect presuppositions.

It is incorrect that human behaviour is totally learned from "past experiences";
A proportion of human behaviour is inherited via genes.

Have you ever heard of the 'Nature/Nurture' debate?

[daniel j lavender]

There appears to be a presumption that the universe was 'created'. That there is therefore a 'creator'. That 'he' must be omnipotent. And so forth. That does rather limit what god must be, or rather indicates our limited imagination and biased views. Indeed, if 'god' is part of the totality of existence then he, or rather it, is not omnipotent.

The omnipotence aspect depends on definition.

For example the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition (2016) defines omnipotent as:

“Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force”

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition 2016
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/omnipotent)


…in which case “universal” could indicate the universe.

God would have power or authority over the universe, itself part of existence.

It is probably impossible to explain the totality of existence

viewtopic.php?t=40269

[Martin Peter Clarke]

There appears to be a presumption that the universe was 'created'. That there is therefore a 'creator'. That 'he' must be omnipotent. And so forth. That does rather limit what god must be, or rather indicates our limited imagination and biased views. Indeed, if 'god' is part of the totality of existence then he, or rather it, is not omnipotent.

The omnipotence aspect depends on definition.

For example the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition (2016) defines omnipotent as:

“Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force”

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition 2016
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/omnipotent)


…in which case “universal” could indicate the universe.

God would have power or authority over the universe, itself part of existence.

It is probably impossible to explain the totality of existence

viewtopic.php?t=40269

He'd have to exercise it over infinite, eternal matter over which He has no choice, no free will, at all. The laws of physics are prevenient of God, who would have to humbly submit to them. So He would not be omnipotent bar being the ground of being, of nature and supernature. Only in the latter would He be manifest.

[Fairy]

'' The quote "He who is rich in the knowledge of the Self does not covet external power or possession" is attributed to Paramananda and reflects the idea that true wealth comes from inner knowledge and understanding of oneself rather than external possessions or power. This perspective is often associated with the teachings of the Upanishads, emphasizing the importance of self-realization and inner peace over material wealth. ''

“There is no joy in the finite; there is joy only in the Infinite.”