We can never encounter god.

How and in what manner God exists is so bound up with any definition of God, that granting a common definition grants also the conclusion; hence the importance of Its definition in any discussion.

Or the truth is beyond the means of human language to perfectly express.

A working definition does not need to be perfect, just agreed upon.

Quite right; I believe that since we invented the concept, we're probably more than qualified, why not give it a shot! There's a lot (at least I, personally) could learn from my fellow humans here.

Here are some qualifiers I'd like to toss out on the notions of 'god' that I've come across:

• A single consciousness
  
• A 'open' consciousness; neither single nor constrained quantitatively
  
• A 'force' that resides everywhere, conscious or not
  
• A creating force; setting all things in motion and not much more
  
• A creating consciousness that still can (and does) exert its power
  

These are just a few notions; there's got to be thousands. But being a non-believer, my notions are quite limited. I'd love to hear from some believers on what their ideas on what god is (or isn't). C'mon, don't be shy!

Thanks

Hey fellas, great thread! Also I must add, a fine example of how to properly quote posts. Notice that the posters name and a link to their post that is quoted, is in most of these posts thus far in this thread. Thanks again all, that makes it much easier to research and later refer back too!... Now to the original thread topic. :detective:


As I read through the responses and the original assertion it seems to me that mankind has spent his lifetime in search of a God. Man has lived his life, built his religions, multiplied his wealth, went to war, worked everyday, did something good to his neighbor, wants to go to hell, etc., etc.. Man has dedicated science to understanding the meaning and cause of life and man's very existence. Man started by writing on rocks in caves and then paper and built the mills and created the ink for the books. Then each crazy man throughout history has come up with ideals and estimations and creatively and eventually created a paranormal omnipotent being. We fought about it, we sent our son's to war, we crucified it when in our presence... ... We built towers to find God.. we built planes and automobiles and built the wonders of this very thing we are communicating on right now, the Internet. We've created it all.

All of this and we are all still searching for the meaning of life and the cause of all effect. The one answer that is above all human knowledge... Still here, still in search of the answers. We can calculate the stars 10,000 years in advance but we sit here never realizing or understanding the true nature of our own existence. How about the answers to the greatest questions than has man scoured the world to find but still comes up with nothing?

Are we too stupid?... Makes ya wonder doesn't it. Maybe, just maybe we are God. Slice and dice it however you want to but it's a good possibility that what we've spent our enitre existence in search of, lies at the heart of every man/woman. The idea of God being a big man in a place called heaven is only an idea that more folks tend to believe in. If man were to discover the God within himself... maybe he is. Maybe, just maybe our evolution as humans are bringing us closer to discovering that God is not what we thought and believed God is to be.

So in a nutshell, I'd have to say yes, most people would be too stupid to recognize God if God himself were standing before them, (if in fact God is a him at all). We've believed in the words of another man from long ago...


Exactly. If Jesus was in fact truth and God at the same time, all those searching had God standing before them and we crucified God. It's truly amazing the stuff we come up with but the devout Christian would not recognize God if God were sitting next them in the pew at church. That's what's funny about this all.

Once we recognize that the God man has created is NEVER going to be truly found... It cannot... it's an idea!... and we further recognize creation is an integral part of man and that God we spend our lives wanting to recognize is right there in our sons, daughters, employers, friends, strangers, presidents, enemies, .. and on and on. When you can see God in others is when we'll recognize God.... Whatever you may want to call him her or it. :bigsmile:


Capable of everything. Is that the story that we follow? A man, somehow or other incapable of being discovered by man but he's out there and he's watching. He's a jealous God and if you do evil you will die and go to hell... lol. Is this the one we're talking about? The one that is omnipotent and omnipresent?

Do you see my point? From your first sentence in the thread it seems assumed or leading into an idea of a God. Once your committed to that idea it becomes a bottleneck,... IMHO. I'm not badgering you, I'm just bringing this up because I too was under the impression that God is something man CANNOT go near.

So is this the God that is capable? If this God that we've so eloquently created an idea of, were to come down here right now and perform miracles and rise from the dead and all those things... if he were here today and living amongst us... We'd persecute him! God is persecuted daily when we persecute ourselves and others.

Something to think about.


Again, if you fall into the belief that God is something that is impossible to know, then of course that naturally becomes your reality. Take a look around you and see the extraordinary things that man has created. It may be just a hunch but I'm wondering if the God we've sought is right there in front us.


How do you think logically about this? Logically under the mindset that God is something we can never achieve or discover or get near? Is there anything there that seems logical?...

Think about this. What if... we are simply molecules of protein within a huge body in man within another world and another life... Off the wall but all possible from a logical standpoint. There may be millions of earths within this one body and... heck who knows.

I truly think the answer to all things is not out of mans reach and the funny thing is that man doesn't have to reach that far to discover it, just look around us..............

We know everything but know nothing of our own existence.

Have you or anyone every been looking for something only to discover that we were looking in the wrong place?

So, (logically) to encounter what man has called God, we'd better be looking in the right place.

Peace!

That's beside the point. We can have a working definition and argue about it, but to what end? If the truth is beyond the limits of human language, using human language to arrive at the truth is, at some point, futile. The farthest logical discourse could take you is arriving at the fact that logical discourse cannot divine the truth about a truth that is beyond human language.

This does not mean the truth is impossible to reach, but instead means that the truth is something that must be experienced and described figuratively.

Objections aside, these sorts of discussions are useful, so I applaud the effort to build a working definition and test the model. My point is that definition is in some cases not the meaning we are attempting to "collectively grasp"



Who is "we"? I do not think anyone is too stupid, I think that people are heavily influenced by our environment, which for humans is generally violent and hate filled. Many mystics, scholars and teachers have used language like 'God within us'. That sort of language is ancient.

How are we to find God when we live the way we do? So busy, rushing everywhere, too busy to think. Maybe too busy to really look for God, even those of us who have spent years studying are often too busy. Nietzsche called Buddhism "the most reasonable of religions", the religion with the richest history of monasticism. I'm not saying you have to be a monk to find God, but a monk certainly has the time to find God.

I imagine at least some of us, "we", are not too stupid and that some of us do find God.



Isn't that part of the reason why the story of Jesus is so compelling? God comes to Earth, a few recognize Him, but even these who are aware struggle to live rightly. For standing up against the abuses in the worship of Himself (radical teaching, spilling the money changing tables), God is crucified by those who are supposed to be His most devout followers - the temple priests.
This works even if Jesus is not God, an idea not found in the first three Gospels, but in John. In the first three, Jesus is still an enlightened teacher, someone who speaks truth to power, the truth of God to power. Those who are supposed to be the most devout, who should be among those who recognize Jesus for what he is, crucify Jesus.



What are the two most important commandments? Love God and Love your neighbor as you do yourself. Why? Because they are the same Commandment.

To share! To explore and appreciate those aspects/definitions that are common as well as those that are not; to see how others think and allow folks reading the opportunity to enjoy how someone else's mind is working. Belief, in this vein, is quite fascinating.

You know what I think? I think that our believers are timid that their definitions are going to get slammed, degraded and picked-apart. If this is true at all, I can understand it but... but... but...

Out with it!

Sure, hence the whole "these sorts of discussions are useful, so I applaud the effort to build a working definition and test the model."



This is where the discussions breakdown. No need for this sort of aggression, especially if the believer does not mistake a working definition of God for God. Idolatry does not require a statue, and can occur in the way we think. Let every potential definition be ridiculed, the believer should not be dismayed but happy to see this happen. Tearing apart a definition of God only proves the point - language is not God.

This sounds awfully negative; perhaps I've misconstrued.

I mean what's wrong with the effort? I, for one, think it'd be nice to hear and discuss; I also don't think it'd turn out that badly. Given the vast conceptions of god, I think it a pertinent and productive conception to voice.

But I'll leave off, it doesn't seem anyone's willing to disclose their belief system... which I find odd, given that it's fundamental aspect to understanding where someone's coming from.

Thanks anyway

I never said anything was wrong with the effort. Again, I called the sort of discussion "useful".

These discussions turn out badly when people say things like 'oh, believers are afraid of criticism and so they don't want to talk about it'. Personally, I spend a great deal of time on this forum talking about this very subject. Is this believer too timid?

I'm not sure what you found negative in that quote, Khethil. These sorts of discussions are useful in that we can learn from them, but these sorts of discussions can only go so far. It's just an exercise.

Heh, no my friend, you don't strike as that way. But you're right I suppose - that whole 'afraid of criticism'-factor. It's quite real. Would you mind sharing your personal conception of god?



It simply sounded like the sentiment was "Why try!, it can only end badly" (which I think is actually part of your point as I understand it). But mainly, this sentence...


It just struck me as such; and does still, although I hope I've taken it in its proper context. Apologies in advance if this isn't the case.

In either case, thanks again for the exchange; always a pleasure.

Sure, some people are afraid of criticism. Some people are afraid of having their hair style criticized. But this general 'ooh, you timid believers, too afraid to say anything' is not only puerile but also unnecessarily aggressive.

My personal conception of God? Khethil, I've played this game before. My personal conception of God is experiential, and not something I can hammer out on my keyboard. But for fun, I'll play along:
God that can be spoken of is not God. That's my conception of God.



Again, I called these sorts of discussions "useful" - how do you go from useful to only ending badly?

Well, let me try to clear this up. These discussions are useful because they eventually lead to the conclusion that these discussions cannot arrive at God. Thus, the believer should be happy to see the various definitions of God collapse. Once all of the definitions have collapsed, the experience of God does not disappear - so we must conclude that God is arrived at through experience and not through logical discourse.



You bet; likewise.

Well, it's no game to me really. I just honestly wanted to hear what it was. Thank you

Anyone else?

hey Khethil
my conception is that God is a simplified representation of everything we dont know. So in my sense, God or the idea of God, is useful whether or not.

If you take away the idea that someone should question faith, then your left with a being that represents natural curiosity in which helps us grow individually. Even when choosing not think of whether God exists, your learning something about your own nature. Or at least if you reflect these types of things internally.:a-thought:

Interesting; A conception of god as an 'ideal'; out there and indefinable <?>.

I don't think I've ever really heard this much, but it seems to be rather prevalent. I must admit, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. I'm very used to definitions that describe a specific being rather than an ideal.

Definitely something to ponder. Thank you

That's part of the difficulty as many people would not describe God as a 'specific being'. From what I can tell, (many; it's a complicated religion) Hindus would object to such a description of God.

The end of reaching a truth. It may not be the final truth, but it may get us closer.

God I believe to be definable as both the cause and consequence of the universe(alpha and omega). Note: this statement is actually meant to be interpreted in a metaphysical way, not in a strictly religious way.

Because God is perfect and thus unchangeable encountering God is not physically possible for beings that are themselves caught in the temporal realm of cause and consequence and therefore have not yet reached perfectness.
Because God is all encompassing, to encounter God would be to be God. We would no longer be ourselves. No one can see God and live.

Disclaimer:
Where I use Biblical references here I do not intend to represent an exclusively Bible-based standpoint. They are just meant as convenient illustrations.

If you dont mind, I will not use a gender or singular pronoun to describe God. For lack of better words, I will use we and us.

God is physically impossible in our universe in our present form. For us to exist in our current universe, we must take a slightly different form. One which is inherently imperfect, but which probably should and probably will strive to be perfect.

If we realize that we are conscious and we realize that other people besides us are "conscious" then will have no problem realizing that once we die we are dead. What we wont be aware of is where we are or what is going on. Luckily, we are aware enough to know other consciousnesses exist, therefore when we do try to let you know whats going on, you will be able to communicate.

We will encounter god as long as we let ourselves die.