Do you beleive in god?

Gee, a whole two votes. Guess how I voted.

Don't worry I won't tell!!!

I voted no, as anyone who knows me would guess.

Just raised the 'nos' to four, heh heh.

After thinking long and hasrd, I pushed button #2

The short answer to your question regarding whether I believe in God is: yes, and no. What do we mean when we refer to "God"? Here are a few definitions:

god (g d) n.
1.God:
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot. [Middle English, from Old English. See gheu( )- in Indo-European Roots.]

God\God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p. p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf. Goodbye, Gospel, Gossip.]
1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.
2. The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.
3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.
4. Figuratively applied to one who wields great or despotic power. [R.] --Shak.

God n
1. The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being]
2. Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [syn: deity, divinity, immortal]
3. A man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"
4. A material object that is worshipped as a god; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" [syn: idol, graven image]

God (A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew _'El_, from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of _'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim_. The singular form, _Eloah_, is used only in poetry. The plural form is more commonly used in all parts of the Bible, The Hebrew word Jehovah (q.v.), the only other word generally employed to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "LORD," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Ps. 14:1). The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of the being of God are:
1. The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.
2. The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are, (a) The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause. (b) The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature. (c) The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth." The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in Ex. 34:6,7. (see also Deut. 6:4; 10:17; Num. 16:22; Ex. 15:11; 33:19; Isa. 44:6; Hab. 3:6; Ps. 102:26; Job 34:12.) They are also systematically classified in Rev. 5:12 and 7:12. God's attributes are spoken of by some as absolute, i.e., such as belong to his essence as Jehovah, Jah, etc.; and relative, i.e., such as are ascribed to him with relation to his creatures. Others distinguish them into communicable, i.e., those which can be imparted in degree to his creatures: goodness, holiness, wisdom, etc.; and ncommunicable, which cannot be so imparted: independence, immutability, immensity, and eternity. They are by some also divided into natural attributes, eternity, immensity, etc.; and moral, holiness, goodness, etc.

god (SPIRIT): noun [C] 1 a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or a representation of this spirit or being.

God (MAKER): noun [S not after the] (in especially Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) the being which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to have an effect on all things

The Abrahamic crowd seems to believe they have a copyright on the term. As can be seen from the definitions above, the term is often defined to suit this religious group. To them "God" is Alpha and Omega; creator of the whole universe and it's promised destroyer. The question of where "God" came from is left unanswered, perhaps because "he" exists outside of, and apart from his creation. Within a finite universe, "God" is omnipotent and cognizant of all things past, present and future. This God of the Abrahamics often meddles in both human affairs and diddles with the laws of physics. The Abrahamic God is very judgmental, lavishing reward on favorites and punishing those who violate his Will. Earthly existence is a trial where blind faith often trumps rationality, or good intentions. What will please this "God", beyond blind faith, is relatively obscure. Both Christians and Muslims strongly believe that their notions of "God's Will" are that they should convert ALL humans to their own brand of belief, and coercion is acceptable. The source of knowledge of God is pretty much limited to either the traditional doctrinal writings of the various Abrahamic schools, or from the mouths of it's religious leaders and priests. Most Abrahamics would regard a common person's claims to communication with "God" as heretical, blasphemous, and mad. This notional definition of what "God" would seem to be a tough sell at the beginning of the 21st century, but the Abrahamics together claim the largest number of followers at this time. The Abrahamics have done a pretty good job of destroying all other religions, and have defined most other definitions of "God" as superstition and myth. I don't believe in this "God" for many reasons, but especially I disbelieve because I think that GOD has to be "bigger and better" than the one described by the Abrahamists. If there is a divine plan, then it must be equally valid and accessible to all sentient beings in all times and places regardless of literacy, mental capacity, or tribal affiliation. To be worthy of beliefs cannot be in conflict with physical laws, or mathematics, but must offer insights into the nature of things.

However, the notion that the term "God" should be plural is not entirely extinct. In some religious groups, the term "God" is symbolic for the fundamental forces that drive natural phenomena. Human kind might not know, or understand, why the annual monsoon occurs, but they do know how important it is to survival, and so the underlying force responsible for the monsoon (in this example) is worshiped. Sophisticated pantheistic systems have developed in many cultures, with "Gods" responsible for almost every natural force. The biggies are almost always fertility, health, wealth, and good fortune. Another common characteristic is a system of taboos growing out of the practice of sympathetic magic. Cultural traditions form the behavioral norms that people are expected to conform to. If a person departs from the norm, breaks a taboo, they are endangering the survival of the entire group by potentially upsetting the balance of nature. Many religions of this sort often regard those in other groups as something not quite human, and virtually never are missionary. The pantheism of Greece, Rome, Gaul and etc. is still evident in Western Civilization, though the Druids and other ancient priestly cults have long since been dead. Native American Indian religions still have many adherents, and other remote tribal groups still cling to their cultural and religious convictions. I'm not a fan of sympathetic magic, or magic of any kind. No rites, or prayers to any form, or force, are likely to change the natural order of things. Cultural traditions have value, but I have real doubts that they have much to tell us about the nature of "God(s)".

Perhaps a more sophisticated notion of "God" can be found in the religions that sprang from Hinduism. Hinduism itself is another sophisticated rendering of beliefs that spring from Shamanistic roots. The idea that the Universe is a series of infinite cycles typified by creation, conflict and destruction is a model that is in stark contrast to the finite model on which the Abrahamic faiths are based. In Hinduism the "Gods" of creation, conflict and destruction are still closely related to Shamanism. The religion is very cultural and mostly limited to those who are born within the culture, not converted from other cultural/religious groups. The "Gods" of Hinduism don't concern themselves much with humankind, nor do they meddle with physical law … they exemplify it. Krishna will dance many worlds (universes) into existence, Vishnu may favor life, but the conflict between existence and non-existence will proceed regardless, and Shiva will in the end destroy everything to make way for Krishna to again bring order out of chaos. Hindus believe that people have real existence, souls and a fated place in the balance of perceptual reality. Fate has almost a royal strait flush, so humans might pray to one deity or another for small and occasional good fortune, but in the end we are all in the hands of universal forces that are beyond human control. Hinduism is tough to explain in a few words, and not to discuss the role of Brahma here makes me somewhat uncomfortable, but I really don't have the time to go more deeply into the subject.

Buddhism, and some other religions, were born out of Hinduism, but are so far from the fundamental Hindu conceptions as to be truly separate. For Buddhists there is no soul, and the primeval universal forces are no longer identified with any "God". What we have kept ("we" because as you should know I'm a long time Buddhist) is the belief that the universe is infinite, without beginning, ending, or borders of any sort. Where the Hindu might regard the perceptual world of multiplicity as "real", Buddhists insist that all is illusory. To Buddhists there is no dimensionality because nothing exists. Perceptual reality, the world of multiplicity, is but a dream. Not even the Dreamer exists, for there is no consciousness or personality to dream. Ultimate Reality is indivisible, but is the source of all that we perceive as being. Now, to me, that is GOD. Infinite and indivisible, the source and explanation of all things real and unreal, this definition of "God" trumps all others. In Buddhism, we have no "God" but the nature of Ultimate Reality, the reality to which the Enlightened awaken to, could surely be called "God". This definition encompasses all, excludes nothing. The problem is reconciling this Buddhist impersonal foundation of the universe, with the more common definition that "God" is a separate being that is the animator of things. Personally, I'm comfortable with calling Ultimate Reality "God" even if that reality doesn't have an existence separate from the perceptual reality that most of us inhabit.

I believe that God believes in Claude...

Hi Ash, Nice post. Missed you in San Francisco. ** During our recent buddhist pilgrimage to Japan, I heard an interesting definition of buddhism. In christianity, nobody can become god. In buddhism, anybody can become buddha.

Okay.
Stop.

Go back now and read Asherman's post.

Yes, all of it. Especially that last bit, toward the middle of the last paragraph.... Hey! don't skip down to there,
read the other parts first, then the last few lines.

It is a majestic piece of writing, simple words describing thoughts which are impossible to conceive. By the way, he didn't convince me that he is right, but he has circumscribed the essence of his belief in a stark, refreshing manner.

Gravitas, indeed.

Joe

I'm just as disappointed to have missed the San Francisco gathering. The budget just wouldn't stretch that far this year. Next year may be even worse. The youngest son is getting married next year in San Francisco, and the costs are already climbing into the stratisphere. I'm beginning to think I'll be lucky to pull off our end of this thing for around $10K. I really don't know how folks get by on less than a hundred grand a year. Anyway, we'll be over sometime next year (I think June is the probable month) for a couple of weeks. Perhaps we can at least have dinner and an afternoon's conversation with the folks who live in and around the Bay Area. I hope so.

I like the definition you quote. The thing is that we all ARE the Buddha, its just that our desires, fears and attachments to perceptual reality blind us to the fact. I think that among at least some of the more sophisticated followers of the Abrahamic faiths some reconciliation might be possible. If their definition of God can expand to encompass the infinite and indivisible nature of Ultimate Reality, we're in business. To be apart from "God" is to be mired in the world of multiplicity, and suffering. To be with "God" is to transcend suffering that is necessarily attached to existence in the perceptual world.

Thank you Joe Nation. I try not to jump into every conversation, to limit my remarks to those times and topics where I think I may have something to add. It's nice to be able to read responses such as yours.

Cicero,

Where's the reports and photos from the San Francisco gathering. I'd like to see/read those. How many and who showed up? How did the accomodation problems work out? Were you guys able to find a time/venue to hold marathon talks? Etc., etc. Curious minds want to know.

This is the part I was speaking of, for those who lack the will to wade through densely written sentences:



Ought to be made into a poster or something, too big for a coffee cup, but still.....wow.

Note to self: Don't ever ask Asherman a simple question.

I don't think it is a simple question.

I think those who do not think about it think it is a simple question.

It's no more simple than the question: "Are we alone in the universe?"

A yes answer or a no answer each have deeply differing meanings.

Joe

Ps I know you were jes joshing.

Which is the new name of a character I shall write about tonight.


:wink:

Some San Francisco Gathering photos are at this link, but you can find more in the San Francisco, California, forum plus in the A2K Gallery. The attendees were blatham, osso, Diane, dys, Mr and Mrs PDid, Mr and Mrs ci, Lola, and jjorge. We had plenty of opportunities for talking, laughing, sharing the outdoors, and the fantastic venues of San Francisco which included Versuvio's, Niebaum Coppolas, some good restaurants, the Ferry Building area with the farmer's market, the Japanese Tea Garden, and the Golden Gate Bridge. Most of us participated in most of the meals and activities. It was fun with many good memories.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22532&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

I'm a Christian, but I agree that Ultimate Reality as a definition of God is probably the most encompassing definition of them all. As I see it, God is both One and All at the same time. God is in everything, but is still One. The one uncaused, self-existent and self-aware consciousness; the first cause, the first will and the reason of reasons; omniscient, omnipotent and infinite in wisdom. This is how I think of God from a philosophical point of view, because from a such point of view, God to me is always the highest concept of Ultimate Reality that I could possibly have. To me the idea that a creature could have a higher concept of something than its creator seems absurd. Therefore I don't believe in much of what the Old Testament in the Bible says about God, because many of those concepts seem very low to me. I do, however, believe in the god that Jesus described in the Gospels, for he makes very much sense to me.

From a philosophical viewpoint, however, God only exists as an idea. But to me God is REALITY, manifested in God the Eternal Father, who is Love, Good and Truth itself. Ultimate Reality personified. God's love is to me more real than anything else I have ever experienced.

Anyhow, I do believe Buddhism and Christianity can be reconciled. At least if consciousness and self-awareness can be ascribed to Ultimate Reality by the Buddhist, and if the Christian can accept an impersonal approach to God as well as a personal.

Asherman, May I add my complements to those of Joe et-al. You have done a wonderful job of distilling an essential Buddist thought.

I do have one question as to Buddism.

To a Buddist is it ever possible to KNOW the "Ultimate Reality"or shall it remain forever unknown ie. unknowable

As an Athiest I BELIEVE (even an Athiest has to believe in something ) That all things are ultimately knowable although they may remain unknown to humans perhaps for their entire existence

In other words I think that eventually everything can be figured out as opposed to the Abrahamists who believe that "the Mind of God is unknowable".

Heck, one more question. What would be the difference between your "Ultimate Reality" and my "Is", accompanied by was and will be

akaMech, You didn't address the question to me, but let me add my .02c worth. I doubt very much even a buddhist can KNOW the ultimate reality. They follow precepts somewhat similar to the ten commandments to become buddha, not to follow the teachings of any god. The first one is "do not harm life." Even if a buddhist follows all the precepts, "ultimate reality" is still a subjective goal. The founder of the Koyasan sect of buddhism in Japan committed suicide by drinking mercury to preserve his human body (or he thought). As a atheist, I find that committing suicide is "harming life."

CI,
In Abrahamic religious circles it is considered "impossible" to know God as He is reputed to be so much different, y'know onnicient, eternal,loving etc. that our frail human minds could not possibly understand everything that there is to KNOW.

Naturally I beg to differ. Humans may never know everything but I don't regard it as impossible. Perhaps difficult, but not impossible.

So again I ask, Is it IMPOSSIBLE for a Buddist to KNOW an Ultimate Reality or is it merely difficult. Theologically speaking of course.