a realistic look at ‘god’, if there is a god what could he be like?

[Amorphos]

you can by-pass my craziness if you wish and just say what you think a realistic god would be like.

omnipresence and the mind of the universe.
to be omnipresent doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘god’ would have to literally be everything [in order that he is present in all things]. it simply means that he would have to be present in any given thing.

i have talked before about my basic theory where everything is like a point on a piece of paper, that the truth is in the simplicity... ‘the paper is infinity, the point is singularity and the infinitesimal, all other points are contained within that point, all energies are points, all compounds are made of atoms which are points around points. the balance between infinity and the infinitesimal is arbitrary and hence quantum ~ is a point, because everything cannot exist at once we have time = a change of points’.

every point in existence is a thought in the mind of the universe, irrespective of its physical content. just as our minds have thought connected to the chemistry of our brains yet they are not thought itself, everything in existence would have though connected to it. of course the universe itself is not a brain and cannot act as one, yet thought can have a small effect on physical objects simply through observation.

the self organising organic universe.
if all existence is thought, it would explain the massive organisation that occurs to make everything the way it is. the very basis of the principles by which all things move may be considered as thought, as can the synchronisation by which things seam to come together e.g. the moon is exactly the correct distance between earth and sun to produce an eclipse. the very forces within the universe may be considered to be flows of thought and the entire ‘whole’ of reality the mind.

the physical objects of the universe would be body of ‘god’, the points its mind and infinity its spirit. god would not be a he though nor a creator, because ‘god’ would have to be universal so; ‘it’ = either neither and both where ‘it’ is ‘god’, thence god can be either male or female in its body and fundamentally neither because it has to be that which can be all.

how else can you define the whole without saying that all that is within us is within the whole?

[merlinuscdxx]

wow, that's a better explanation of god than i've gotten from any religion...now start dressing in silly clothes, speaking with absolute certainty about theories that you are still in the process of discovering, pay some poor kids to hand out "literature", get a hold of a building , decorate it strangely & come up with a vague explanation for the decor, call yourself a prophet and attack anyone who disagrees with you, threaten a horrible post-mortem existence for dissenters, go secure yourself a tax break and start collecting money from those who enter your building (telling them that this alone can save you from the previous caveat), and finally, give yourself a nonsensical title, and you too can have a religion as successful as christianity.

[Amorphos]

merlin

my plan is foiled damn!

[HopliteElite]

God does not exist. Without evidence of his existence, beyond the subjective and rediculous "he must exist" stage, he does not exist. So, to answer shortly, there is no God.

[Cyphon88]

Kant advocates that god would have no morals.

Thats not an inflammatory phrase, just that he would have no need or moral laws because he has what was considered the 'good will' and moral laws would be part of his being. (although part of this is based upon the universalized laws - do as you would have do to other) And so it would limit severely god's powers to do anything possibly explaining why he was, he did nothing to help people possibly. (the moral laws get difficult to think about when it gets to gods et al.

This ofc assumes that there is a god.

[Chaigidel]

the absolute void --- if you can imagine it; is close to how everything would appear if viewed objectively, but since you are within god, wherever you look and whatever you imagine, is all equally true of god.

God does exist; and no matter how you choose to view it , as a negative or a positive or however you dress those various choices-- It remains.

I have addressed this many times in many posts-- that if the supreme exists as the "omniscient, omnipotent" one god, then it exists essentially as a formless constant, an artifact of all the natural processes both seen and unseen, god is a throne, most of all; a seat for whatever you choose to place upon it--- the one god remains, but we shape the throne of our hearts and minds, and we seat the lord at our table, It is welcomed however you choose to welcome it.

but It remains something beyond form and word, and any definition; it is the supreme holy one, the ancient of days, our father above, our mother below.

the tree, the serpent and the sacrifice are all inherent to the icons which tie into the truth about god, the truth about the physical understanding of your master.

[Ummagumma]

God does exist; and no matter how you choose to view it , as a negative or a positive or however you dress those various choices-- It remains.

Or it doesn't, and no matter how you chose to view it, as a negative or a positive or however you dress those various choices-- It never was. You just see it everywhere..
Orthodox and established, or new-age conceptual, or none. It all depends on who is viewing it, rather than what is being viewed. The 'answer' always depends more on the person giving it than any other factors.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Quetz, when we die, why should we be any closer to God? Seemingly by your own definition, everywhere we go we are as close as can be to the omnipresent creator.

[Amorphos]

cyphon88

god might not have morals as such, what we see is organisation and evolution into entities that can think for themselves. what else do we need!

hopliteelite

God does not exist. Without evidence of his existence, beyond the subjective and rediculous “he must exist” stage, he does not exist. So, to answer shortly, there is no God.

we cannot say that for sure yet. with all the organisation in the universe it makes more sense that existence has ‘something’ what makes it tick. more than this it makes more sense that everything we are is inherent in the whole!

chai

that if the supreme exists as the “omniscient, omnipotent” one god

we have shown that omnipotence is not possible. i would say that the god i am describing is not a god as we would normally perceive it.

but It remains something beyond form and word, and any definition

thats just the point, the god you describe is over there looking on and is more omni-flaccid than omnipotent. the ‘god’ i describe is here with us! in fact we are all its sons and animals too etc.

ummagumma

Orthodox and established, or new-age conceptual, or none. It all depends on who is viewing it, rather than what is being viewed. The ‘answer’ always depends more on the person giving it than any other factors.

that is why we have to say what it could be if at all, rather than rely on pure speculation and individualistic interpretation.

shyam

when we die, why should we be any closer to God? Seemingly by your own definition, everywhere we go we are as close as can be to the omnipresent creator.

nearer in spirit but not in body. this is why i believe in rebirth ~ it is all a circle y’know. let us not forget that ‘god’ would be present in infinity too. perhaps to be without body is to be with the greater part of god - if you will.

in truth perhaps we are always equally near and far from god.

[Chaigidel]

actually there comes a point, where the observer becomes irrelevant.-- yes I do see god everywhere, but that is not a choice, it simply is.

beyond all religion and anti religion, god remains- unmotivated by our demands upon It.

your closer to god because your sack of meat no longer gives you the impression that you somehow understand ( when you die)

[Ummagumma]

actually there comes a point, where the observer becomes irrelevant.-- yes I do see god everywhere, but that is not a choice, it simply is.

Subjective. You see it everywhere. Unless you think you have transcended yourself somehow....

beyond all religion and anti religion, god remains- unmotivated by our demands upon It.

That is purely how you see things. It's cool if you do, I really don't care.

your closer to god because your sack of meat no longer gives you the impression that you somehow understand ( when you die)

Huh? So once you die you believe you will be closer to your God concept because you will be beyond the ability to understand? Is that like the wiccan/hedge 'cosmic soup' thing?

[Tankbuster]

Hi Quetzalcoatl

There's a contradictio in terminis in your thread title Namely "realistic" and "god"

Seriously, why would you need a God to explain the organisation (both simple and complex) that appears to be present in the universe? For me, this is essentially a non-question.

[MaximiIian]

To me, the only realistic idea of a god is a pantheistic one, without consciousness or sapience. A deity that is the physical universe, a core part of a greater force of divinity transcending multiple dimensions of space-time, sentient only in the capacity that an amoeba is sentient: it reacts to internal and external change and stimuli in accordance to natural and physical laws.


But, from the western standpoint, that does not seem to be a "god", until interpretations based on culture or society come into play. Humans, historically, then interpreted this naturally reacting and functioning universe in various ways. Some, as the actions of a monotheistic omnipotent god, or a pantheon of plenipotentiary deities; as a living expression of the natures of a male and female supreme deity; or simply as a plane of matter, seemingly of a scale too epic to be able to react as a whole.

All of these, even my explanation of the idea, are equally accurate and inaccurate, grasping a bit of truth, without seizing the full of it, because the scope of human imagination, however great, is still limited by local factors.

[Zephrelial]

To me, the only realistic idea of a god is a pantheistic one, without consciousness or sapience.

The major flaw in the pantheistic perspective that its denial of the truth that us humans have received negative characteristics of our existance from the God itself.

"God had created us in his image."

Assuming that this is indeed so,we have inherited the virtues of honesty,wisdom,tolerance,intelligence etc from God.

So from the same perspective than from whom we have received the complex feelings and behaving patterns such as hatred,vengeance,decadency,jealousy..

Let me give you a hint,AGAIN from whoelse but God? This is where pantheism fails.For it fails to acknowledge and derive the truth from their own thinking system.

[MaximiIian]

The major flaw in the pantheistic perspective that its denial of the truth that us humans have received negative characteristics of our existence from the God itself.

Not necessarily. If you view nature as deity, then by definition, it is from deity that we received our negative and positive characteristics (ignoring that notions of positive and negative traits are totally subjective concepts), because it was nature, and thus pantheistic deity, that moulded us as we reacted and evolved to suit our natural environment.

"God had created us in his image."

A flawed and speciesist statement to say the least.

@ Maximiliam:

Just one question referring to your userbars: How can you be a Pagan and an Atheist? I mean, a Pagan is still sort of a religious being believing in gods and old tales, but an Atheist doesn't believe in any god!

I swear, I've answered this a thousand times.

Neopaganism, and particularly Wicca, are religions; atheism is a theological stance, which falls into the metaphysical philosophy of a given religion. Though most neopagans and Wiccans are polytheist or duotheist, my non-belief in the Western ideal of a theistic, transcendent deity does not at all impede my religious beliefs as a neopagan, which cover more than just theology and metaphysics. It, like all religions, all philosophical systems which are more than just beliefs regarding deity and divinity.

For a more thorough explanation, you can check the link in my signature "My Philosophical Profile", which you should have done in the first place.

[General A. Skywalker]

For a more thorough explanation, you can check the link in my signature "My Philosophical Profile", which you should have done in the first place.

Oh, I apologize Mr Neopagan. But it's not like my whole life's aimed at your personal philosophical views and ideas.


But I have another "broadside" for you : Socialism and Monarchism is quite an unusual constellation, isn't it? :hmmm: But let me have a guess... I should have a look at your political profile, right?

[MaximiIian]

Oh, I apologize Mr Neopagan. But it's not like my whole life's aimed at your personal philosophical views and ideas.

Ah, it's okay. I was feeling kinda tired earlier, and I may have snapped.

But I have another "broadside" for you : Socialism and Monarchism is quite an unusual constellation, isn't it? :hmmm: But let me have a guess... I should have a look at your political profile, right?

Yes, but this one is easy enough to explain that you don't have to.

To me, the core aim of socialism and constitutional monarchy are the same: to protect the people and their rights, and to provide for the common welfare of the people.
Thus, they aren't necessarily in violation of one another.

To me, monarchy would provide stability and leadership, and more effectively eliminate the corrupt bourgeoisie and noble class. The monarch would not be a divine-right absolute king, but a sovereign emperor chosen by the democratic will of the people; selected to command the state with limited powers, and the HM's government taking the form of the people's proxy, though which the economy would be centrally guided.

[jankren]

What if God was one of us?

[Amorphos]

hi tankbuster

well when i use the term god i mean something as yet undefined but has some kind of universal mind nature. i think an ‘organic’ universe explains a lot of things e.g. the hows and why’s, it also explains a ‘presence’ that people have perceived for millenia.

maximilian, hi

sentient only in the capacity that an amoeba is sentient: it reacts to internal and external change and stimuli in accordance to natural and physical laws.

it could just be that yes, would it not have infinite intellect though? i wouldn’t see this kind of intellect as like ours, it is more passive ~ as if everything has been considered or thought out already, as it would if infinite. this would have the effect you describe.

does not seem to be a “god”, until interpretations based on culture or society come into play.

indeed. every religion automatically thinks its their god, yet we may only understand the tip of the iceberg. what we do know however doesn’t seam to be anything like a traditional ‘god’.

jankren hi

well god is one of us ~ ‘he’ is all of us and everything. if not then he isn’t whole! if he is not present amongst things then he is more omni-flaccid than omnipotent. if god exists then, he must be part of reality not over there somewhere.

[General A. Skywalker]

@ Maximiliam:

Just one question referring to your userbars: How can you be a Pagan and an Atheist? I mean, a Pagan is still sort of a religious being believing in gods and old tales, but an Atheist doesn't believe in any god!