What exactly IS God?

[Boss]

Every civilization except the current ones have failed, spirituality or no. I would think that far more civilizations have come and gone with some sort of spirituality than those without.

Humans have a complex language which, as far as I know at least, no other animal has. We also have written language, again a unique human thing.

The current civilizations devoid of spirituality will also fail. It doesn't take long.

Language? Hmm... do you comprehend what birds are saying to each other? How about the 'language' of bees or ants, who seem to communicate almost telepathically through pheromones? Here are several species getting along just fine without written language.

As I stated before, any 'unique' attribute you believe you have found in humans, can be directly traced back to spiritualization. It is the inspiration humans receive from their spiritual connection which has enabled us to do all that we have done as a species.

 

[dblack]

Gods are persistent patterns of information. They're born of networks of human minds, who host them as distributed entities.

Are you saying gods are born of the collective human conscious/image(ination)...a concept of the collective mind...containing persistent patterns of information that take on a life of their own via memes. If so, I agree. lol

That's it exactly, yes. And in that sense, they're no less real that human minds.

 

[pacer]

Gods are persistent patterns of information. They're born of networks of human minds, who host them as distributed entities.

Are you saying gods are born of the collective human conscious/image(ination)...a concept of the collective mind...containing persistent patterns of information that take on a life of their own via memes. If so, I agree. lol

That's it exactly, yes. And in that sense, they're no less real that human minds.

That's right. In the beginning there was 'word'. Words take on a life of their own and become memes. Memes are units of information that reside in our consciousness and are passed on from one person to the next through the expression of thought. Thought resides in the mind. Therefore the gods of our mind/imagination are as real as the gods we project into the real world via words or memes.

 

[Boss]

Gods are persistent patterns of information. They're born of networks of human minds, who host them as distributed entities.

Are you saying gods are born of the collective human conscious/image(ination)...a concept of the collective mind...containing persistent patterns of information that take on a life of their own via memes. If so, I agree. lol

That's it exactly, yes. And in that sense, they're no less real that human minds.

The problem I have with the "it's all in our heads" theory is the results of natural selection when it comes to humans. We didn't evolve into the most sophisticated and advanced species of all by hindering our species with false beliefs in imaginary friends. Natural selection would suggest, somewhere along the way, other upper primates who weren't hindered by rituals and ceremonial nonsense, would have surpassed humans or rendered them extinct.

The fact that human spirituality has existed for as long as there have been human civilizations demonstrates there is a very real (not imaginary) benefit obtained by the species.

 

[BreezeWood]

What exactly IS God?

Boss: God can exist and be very relevant without an afterlife for humans ... It's possible that our soul's existence here on earth is a single step in our spiritual process which will continue after we die ... I recognize all life is from God, and I believe life itself is the strongest argument for God's existence.

I recognize all life is from God ...

not from God, life evolves because there is an Everlasting that makes it possible, a Sun for a Garden and created an Almighty that became its arbitrator ... or why otherwise would there be spirituality if the Spirit from within had nowhere else to go - admission to the Everlasting.

whatever is alive, is defined by its own unique Spirit separate from its physiology.

.

 

[dblack]

Are you saying gods are born of the collective human conscious/image(ination)...a concept of the collective mind...containing persistent patterns of information that take on a life of their own via memes. If so, I agree. lol

That's it exactly, yes. And in that sense, they're no less real that human minds.

The problem I have with the "it's all in our heads" theory is the results of natural selection when it comes to humans. We didn't evolve into the most sophisticated and advanced species of all by hindering our species with false beliefs in imaginary friends. Natural selection would suggest, somewhere along the way, other upper primates who weren't hindered by rituals and ceremonial nonsense, would have surpassed humans or rendered them extinct.

The fact that human spirituality has existed for as long as there have been human civilizations demonstrates there is a very real (not imaginary) benefit obtained by the species.

You seem to be taking my perspective as dismissive of gods as 'not real' because they are products of human minds. But I'd contend, in similar fashion, that human minds are similar 'persistent patterns of information'. Thus my claim that gods are no less real than we are. For what it's worth, I don't think this perspective robs them of any of their power or spiritual value.

 

[Steven_R]

I'm an agnostic simply because I have no data concerning the supernatural which, by definition, lies outside of the natural world.

I suspect that if there is a God, it is something along the lines of what Deism holds it to be. There's a force that put in motion the universe and then left it alone. Whether or not there is some intelligence behind that force is debatable.

I think that if there is a god, then no human religion has gotten it right. They're all right in the notion that there is something, but all wrong in the details of who, what, when, where, why, and how. Too much of what religion claims is just unsupportable superstition and mythology that somehow has the veneer of respectability. Maybe they are all just facets of one big supernatural gem or maybe none of them get it.

I don't know one way or another what god is or isn't, but I don't think it's Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Ra, or any other mythological being, nor do I think that any religious texts are anything more than fables that might hold some nugget of truth here and there but overall are just stories and guides to ancient cultures.

I just try to live my life and not be a dick in the process.

 

[dblack]

I'm an agnostic simply because I have no data concerning the supernatural which, by definition, lies outside of the natural world.

I've never understood 'supernatural' as a coherent concept. If gods exist, they are no more supernatural than we are.

 

[Steven_R]

Supernatural meaning not on this plane of existence. I can't prove there is no god behind gravity, but I can describe gravity's effects without god. I can describe how lightning works without invoking Thor's name or putting Poseidon in an equation about wave formation.

 

[Boss]

Supernatural meaning not on this plane of existence. I can't prove there is no god behind gravity, but I can describe gravity's effects without god. I can describe how lightning works without invoking Thor's name or putting Poseidon in an equation about wave formation.

Can you explain why gravity or lighting exists? Simple yes or no will do, and I am not asking HOW they work or what causes them. Why do they exist?

 

[Steven_R]

Not completely, but that doesn't mean we won't find an answer. We used to not understand why babies look like their parents but then we figured out genetics.

 

[Boss]

I'm an agnostic simply because I have no data concerning the supernatural which, by definition, lies outside of the natural world.

I've never understood 'supernatural' as a coherent concept. If gods exist, they are no more supernatural than we are.

Supernatural can be a very subjective term. Many things were once thought to be supernatural but science explained them. By almost all logical consideration, dark energy and dark matter could be deemed "supernatural" if it weren't for the physical presence of gravity.

Just a century ago, the concept of 'black holes' would have been considered supernatural. Einstein's theory of relativity would have also been considered outside the "natural" because it defied Newton's Laws of Motion.

Now, with human spiritual behavior, this is a perfectly natural phenomenon. It has been happening naturally with humans for as long as they've existed. In fact, with only 5% of the population identifying as Nihilist, it is unnatural for humans to not be spiritual.

 

[Montrovant]

Every civilization except the current ones have failed, spirituality or no. I would think that far more civilizations have come and gone with some sort of spirituality than those without.

Humans have a complex language which, as far as I know at least, no other animal has. We also have written language, again a unique human thing.

The current civilizations devoid of spirituality will also fail. It doesn't take long.

Language? Hmm... do you comprehend what birds are saying to each other? How about the 'language' of bees or ants, who seem to communicate almost telepathically through pheromones? Here are several species getting along just fine without written language.

As I stated before, any 'unique' attribute you believe you have found in humans, can be directly traced back to spiritualization. It is the inspiration humans receive from their spiritual connection which has enabled us to do all that we have done as a species.

My point was really that human history shows that all civilizations eventually fall, whether they are spiritual or not.

I don't dismiss the possibility of complex languages such as humans use in animals, perhaps in dolphins or whales, but I am unaware of any clear evidence of such. And the fact that every other species 'gets along fine' without written language doesn't change the fact that it is unique to humanity.

We've been through this discussion about spirituality before, and I think we'll just have to disagree on it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Sin is simply the boundary defining human behaviour and why we're human beings instead of 'highly developed primates.' We differ because we have the concept of sin/law. Without it we'd be even more animalistic and chaotic than we are with such limits. Just as children need and flourish under strict discipline, so do adults. Living without rules would have us exist in a state where we don't know where the lines are drawn and that uncertainty is far worse psychologically than having even overly strict limits.

Without fear of punishment, there can be no law or order. G-d may be as far above Man evolutionarily as we are single-celled organisms, but because we do better with limitations on our behaviour, I see it as more, not less consistent such a being would give us laws to live by.

I have two working hypthesis for what G-d is. The simplest if not most likely is that an alien species interacted with us long ago and were mistaken by us as gods. Though for all intents and purposes, they were.

The other notion is what we call G-d is simply the psychic manifestation of all living minds effecting reality on the quantum level. A sort of 'group think' or biological networked computer. Ever so often, like thoughts 'line up' and manifest some physical reality that can't be explained with known science and is called miraculous or divine. In reality, it's simply large-scale quantum interactions.

The universe is overwhelmingly lifeless. Yet life exists. But where lifeless stops and life begins is similar to how all living organisms are made up of living matter yet on individual scales, a single cell though 'alive' isn't also sentient. Yet taken as a whole unit, all those individual cells are sentient. So maybe stars and planets other 'singular units' are simply like cells within an organism. On the small scale not alive, but on the whole they are. And the universe as a single whole unit is what we call G-d. Beause of our limited perspective though we perceive only our immediate surroundings and mistake that for 'reality' just as a single blood cell would if it could think. A single red blood cell flowing through a vein would 'think' that's the whole world and it's a singular being unable to appreciate how it's in fact part of a greater whole.

You have some interesting thoughts. It appears you might be trying to explain God without defining it as God. (why do people type "G-d"?) I've often said, if modern science were to somehow discover the secret to spiritual nature and find the physical evidence to support God, the cries would be: "See, we told you there was no such thing as God!"

I am not as sure as you that our universe is overwhelmingly lifeless. I am also unsure if ours is the only universe or our conscious reality the only dimension. I listened to a theoretical physicist explain how dark matter and dark energy might be explained by imagining another plane of existence and reality hovering just above our own. We can detect gravity of this other 'universe' but have no other physical indicators. This is where theories of 'wormholes' and similar phenomenon come from.

I don't profess to know the answers here, I believe there is far more we don't know and understand about the universe than we do understand. What I do know is humans are intrinsically tied to a spiritual faith that no other creatures seem to have.

Jews and others often omit a letter in any name used to refer to G-d out of respect for the holiness of the name. Aloud we say "hashem" which is simple Hebrew meaning "the name."

Judaism 101: The Name of G-d

"Please note: This page contains the Name of God. If you print it out, please treat it with appropriate respect.

The name of God should be treated with respect
• God has many names in the Bible
• A Name should not be written, so it will not be discarded disrespectfully
• The most important name is the four-letter name
• The pronunciation of the four-letter name is unknown

Writing the Name of God

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better."

more at link

 

[Boss]

Every civilization except the current ones have failed, spirituality or no. I would think that far more civilizations have come and gone with some sort of spirituality than those without.

Humans have a complex language which, as far as I know at least, no other animal has. We also have written language, again a unique human thing.

The current civilizations devoid of spirituality will also fail. It doesn't take long.

Language? Hmm... do you comprehend what birds are saying to each other? How about the 'language' of bees or ants, who seem to communicate almost telepathically through pheromones? Here are several species getting along just fine without written language.

As I stated before, any 'unique' attribute you believe you have found in humans, can be directly traced back to spiritualization. It is the inspiration humans receive from their spiritual connection which has enabled us to do all that we have done as a species.

My point was really that human history shows that all civilizations eventually fall, whether they are spiritual or not.

I don't dismiss the possibility of complex languages such as humans use in animals, perhaps in dolphins or whales, but I am unaware of any clear evidence of such. And the fact that every other species 'gets along fine' without written language doesn't change the fact that it is unique to humanity.

We've been through this discussion about spirituality before, and I think we'll just have to disagree on it.

But it't not unique to humanity, other species have their own language and some communicate without the need for language at all. But even the development of written language by man was the result of inspiration.

Yes, all civilizations ultimately fail, but civilizations without spirituality have been very short lived. Civilization breaks down very rapidly without spiritual foundation. Yes, more civilizations have probably collapsed with spiritualization, but that is because humans generally are spiritual and know that civilization can't exist without a moral (spiritual) foundation.

 

[Boss]

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

I never knew this. It would seem to be a disrespect to leave out the vowel. I've always interpreted it as such, I had no idea it was Jews who were respecting God. So when I type 'sh*t or f#ck' I am actually respecting those words? Strange!

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

The original post sounds as though it is coming from someone who is a Universalist Unitarian.
Anyway, having read the bible (via bible thumping parents) and some of the Quran, I don't consider any of the Abrahamic religions to be very good role models. Some of the basics are just common sense expectations that one would expect from their fellow human beings (don't steal, don't murder, et cetera). The sad thing though, is that (especially in the Abrahamic religions) such religions divide humanity rather than unites them. They preach the hatred, shunning and intolerance of others who don't subscribe to their particular teachings.
Christianity has something like 41,000 different sects, each one preaching that the others are wrong and are going to hell.
I consider the religions and their accompanying deities, to be the fabrication of man to control their behavior and maintain control over them out of those individuals within their communities.
They don't need fictitious deities, just secular laws on one behavior towards his/her fellow man.

 

[HUGGY]

The original post sounds as though it is coming from someone who is a Universalist Unitarian.
Anyway, having read the bible (via bible thumping parents) and some of the Quran, I don't consider any of the Abrahamic religions to be very good role models. Some of the basics are just common sense expectations that one would expect from their fellow human beings (don't steal, don't murder, et cetera). The sad thing though, is that (especially in the Abrahamic religions) such religions divide humanity rather than unites them. They preach the hatred, shunning and intolerance of others who don't subscribe to their particular teachings.
Christianity has something like 41,000 different sects, each one preaching that the others are wrong and are going to hell.
I consider the religions and their accompanying deities, to be the fabrication of man to control their behavior and maintain control over them out of those individuals within their communities.
They don't need fictitious deities, just secular laws on one behavior towards his/her fellow man.

I agree with your statement. As societies developed in the early stages there was a definite need for guidance and a mmoral compass even if these teachings were only meant to control certain segments of the population and as you put it "shunned" a greater portion of humanity. Much of humanity was barbaric in the beginning. If there had not been Muhammed the Arabs would have butchered most of the human beings in Northern Africa and along the spice trade routes.

Without Christianity I shudder to guess what kind of a world we would have today based on how the Romans treated those that were not Roman citizens. A Roman type society with today's technology could be 100 times more frightening that anything Hitler dreamed of.

That said now that people are more enlightened and educated and organized religion has effectively outlived it's usefullness for most of the modern population..I think. Seeing the events in and near Russia and Ukraine I am having second thoughts. There are still large populations that need to be battered by guilt and allegience to a diety to do the right thing.

Atheists only represent less than 10% of the U S population. It might take a long while longer before the world of human beings can act properly with each other without the fraudulent threat of a god's wrath or a damnation to a hell.

We will have finally acheived freedom fom the neccesary fraud of religion when we elect a president that says belief in a god is nonsense and is not even asked to pledge his loyalty to his country with his hand on a bible.

 

[Boss]

The original post sounds as though it is coming from someone who is a Universalist Unitarian.
Anyway, having read the bible (via bible thumping parents) and some of the Quran, I don't consider any of the Abrahamic religions to be very good role models. Some of the basics are just common sense expectations that one would expect from their fellow human beings (don't steal, don't murder, et cetera). The sad thing though, is that (especially in the Abrahamic religions) such religions divide humanity rather than unites them. They preach the hatred, shunning and intolerance of others who don't subscribe to their particular teachings.
Christianity has something like 41,000 different sects, each one preaching that the others are wrong and are going to hell.
I consider the religions and their accompanying deities, to be the fabrication of man to control their behavior and maintain control over them out of those individuals within their communities.
They don't need fictitious deities, just secular laws on one behavior towards his/her fellow man.

They preach the hatred, shunning and intolerance of others who don't subscribe to their particular teachings.

Christianity has something like 41,000 different sects, each one preaching that the others are wrong and are going to hell.

This is where I have to disagree with you. If you have studied the teachings of Jesus Christ, you understand that he forgave and accepted many-a-sinner. One of his most devout Apostles was a former Jew, Paul (or Saul of Taurus). His initial reaction to the newly formed Christian movement was to zealously persecute its early followers and to violently attempt to destroy the movement. Paul was a Roman citizen by birth, Paul, was "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee". This according to Acts.

The family had a history of religious piety. Paul confesses that "beyond measure" he persecuted the church of God prior to his conversion.[Gal. 1:13-14] [Phil. 3:6] [Acts 8:1-3]

Clearly this man represents in his early life, what was the most egregious spectrum of disagreement with Jesus' teachings, but he became the man most responsible for much of the New Testament and the foundation of modern Christian religion. He is probably one of the most important, (if not THE most important) people in all of Christianity aside from Jesus himself. So we have a very clear example of someone who certainly was not hated, shunned or shown intolerance by Jesus Christ himself.

When we study the teachings of Jesus, it was about complete forgiveness and love. Every act of Jesus was an act of forgiveness and love. He gave his life on the cross in a gesture of pure love. So that you could be forgiven for your sins. Where is the hatred and intolerance there? I am not seeing it at all. Let me add, I don't believe Jesus is the "son of God" but I do not find his teachings to be conducive with your argument.

Now... Perhaps there are denominations of people who supposedly "follow" Christian teachings and are hateful intolerant shunners.... I tend to agree, I hear some pretty whacked out things from various "Christian" churches. But these are "religious" manifestations from human spiritual connection. I'm not here to argue if they are "right or wrong" in what they believe. I am not a very "religious" person. I'm just presenting the facts as I understand them, and I don't find the teachings of Jesus to be out of accord with my own spiritual mindset.

I believe we do have a responsibility to encourage and promote a positive spiritual energy flow. We should avoid doing and saying things that go against positive spiritual energy. If it's not good for us spiritually, then it's not good for us period. We have to routinely connect with our spiritual minds in order to maintain harmony with our spiritual self and creator. Negative spiritual energy also exists, and it can be very deceptive and take all kinds of forms we may not immediately recognize, so it is an almost constant vigil to maintain harmony. This is why I believe religions ultimately form, because we essentially require routine of this practice to maintain our spiritual harmony.

 

[Boss]

The original post sounds as though it is coming from someone who is a Universalist Unitarian.

Well, I am not a Universal Unitarian, although they do seem to be a denomination I wouldn't have an issue with spiritually. I can respect most modern conservative religions, they promote harmonious and positive spiritual energy flow. I just find organized religion to be too political for me, I am perfectly content to connect to my spiritual creator whenever I please and have no qualms, issues or questions regarding my spiritual faith.