Defining God

J. Stew · #1 11-07-2005, 08:01 PM

God is what is happening/what is, when you don't think, or put what is happening in the form of concepts. The reason that people are confused about what God is is that they can't stop thinking. Is there an argument against this please. If there is an argument that the concept of 'God' is an outdated idea used to conceptually define things we don't understand i.e. Zeus God of lightening, then please say so.

RJT · #2 11-07-2005, 09:31 PM

I get the impression that many atheists think that God is a crutch that man has used for thousands of years. That God is only a crutch. In light of our awareness vis a vis science, this crutch is no longer needed.

Although I can understand this thinking, I disagree with it. First, because I think that many over state or assume that we know so much about the way of all the world. From my perspective we know so little. We are babies in what we know of the Universe. This is not to say that because we know so little that we still need that crutch of a God. It just seems to me that there is a big jump from our modern perceptions to no God.

I don’t see that God is a crutch, so I come from a different starting point.

J. Stew · #3 11-07-2005, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems to me that there is a big jump from our modern perceptions to no God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This relates to what I meant when I said God is not what we think. It seems that we think we can explain things with science, which we can, but that leads to the conditioning of our minds. We think we can explain, in conceptual terms, how things work, which leads to believing in conceptual ideas rather than the truth we already know as which is reality. It seems that people who know God experientially, just know themselves really well, and people who are religious understand the concept of God.

DougShrapnel · #4 11-07-2005, 11:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems to me that there is a big jump from our modern perceptions to no God.

[/ QUOTE ] Allthought, I agree with this statement, I think our knowledge is enough to cast great doubt on the worlds religions.

RJT · #5 11-07-2005, 11:04 PM

I think I basically agree with what you are saying; other than the conclusion you reach. I don’t mean this sentence to contradict itself. I still conclude with God. You seem to conclude that it is only a better understanding of ourselves. Seems to be similar thought processes though.

To illustrate my thinking: What little I read about string theory for example - scientists seem to think they are on to something. To me this seems simply more of the same, but to a better degree of understanding of how things (might) work. It does not lead me away from God.

jt1 · #6 11-07-2005, 11:13 PM

I have a great problem with Atheists unless I figure they just mean that there is no human like father figure type God looking down upon us. This is a position that can backed up with a plethora of logical statements.

But stating that there can't be or there's unlikely to be some mysterious all powerful unknowable force that rules all of existence (and non-existence)is an expression of faith of which no logic exists to back it up. It is the same as saying that Humananity knows pretty much most of what there is to know, and since We haven't yet discovered God then most likely there's no such thing.

J. Stew · #7 11-07-2005, 11:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think I basically agree with what you are saying; other than the conclusion you reach. I don’t mean this sentence to contradict itself. I still conclude with God. You seem to conclude that it is only a better understanding of ourselves. Seems to be similar thought processes though.

To illustrate my thinking: What little I read about string theory for example - scientists seem to think they are on to something. To me this seems simply more of the same, but to a better degree of understanding of how things (might) work. It does not lead me away from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're on the same page. I didn't mean to conclude that a deeper conceptual understanding of self = a deeper conceptual understanding of God. It's like a deeper conceptual understanding of self, of the thoughts that make up the self or ego, lead to a letting go of conceptual ideas themselves because you see that concepts themselves are what hazes reality and reality IMO is truth/God. Does that make sense?

J. Stew · #8 11-07-2005, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a great problem with Atheists unless I figure they just mean that there is no human like father figure type God looking down upon us. This is a position that can backed up with a plethora of logical statements.

But stating that there can't be or there's unlikely to be some mysterious all powerful unknowable force that rules all of existence (and non-existence)is an expression of faith of which no logic exists to back it up. It is the same as saying that Humananity knows pretty much most of what there is to know, and since We haven't yet discovered God then most likely there's no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was not referring to Atheism here, rather saying that it is the absence of belief, belief in concepts in general, that provides a clear mind which can see reality clearly which IMO is truth. And asking if reality = truth then does reality = God or, the Universe itself?

RJT · #9 11-07-2005, 11:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I basically agree with what you are saying; other than the conclusion you reach. I don’t mean this sentence to contradict itself. I still conclude with God. You seem to conclude that it is only a better understanding of ourselves. Seems to be similar thought processes though.

To illustrate my thinking: What little I read about string theory for example - scientists seem to think they are on to something. To me this seems simply more of the same, but to a better degree of understanding of how things (might) work. It does not lead me away from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're on the same page. I didn't mean to conclude that a deeper conceptual understanding of self = a deeper conceptual understanding of God. It's like a deeper conceptual understanding of self, of the thoughts that make up the self or ego, lead to a letting go of conceptual ideas themselves because you see that concepts themselves are what hazes reality and reality IMO is truth/God. Does that make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

My position is that I conclude in better relationship with God. I had understood you to conclude for yourself in something akin to Truth. Hadn't realized before that you were somewhat equating it with God though. It depends on if you think of Truth as a object that has thought - or a being so to speak. If so then it is akin to God, it seems. If it is "inanimate" then we have the same processes, yet different conclusions. (This last sentence does not appear to be what you mean. Hadn't picked that up before.) Ditto to: does that make sense?

J. Stew · #10 11-08-2005, 12:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]

It depends on if you think of Truth as a object that has thought - or a being so to speak. If so then it is akin to God, it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. . . please elaborate. I have the same difficulties defining truth as I do God which leads me to believe they are connected or may be the same as in Ultimate Truth = God. I notice in myself, that when my mind is quiet, I see reality in a clearer way. I see what is actually happening as opposed to what I think is going on. This leads me to see the truth about things to a greater degree. I wonder if an even more quiet mind would lead to a clearer reality which would make me see truth to a greater degree. And I wonder if seeing this truth or reality to a greater degree/clearer way, is experiencing God in a 'more quality-filled' way?