Definition of God

[Knothead]

I define God as something(someone) that defies definition.

Is that an oxymoron or a paradox?

[modest]

I define God as something(someone) that defies definition.

Is that an oxymoron or a paradox?

 

I don't think it'd be either. I could define language as that which defines definition... no paradox there.

 

It could easily be a chiasmus though.

 

~modest

[Knothead]

I don't think it'd be either. I could define language as that which defines definition... no paradox there.

 

It could easily be a chiasmus though.

 

~modest

 

You went and made me look up a new word. :bouquet:

 

Chiasmus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Still don't think I really understand how it applies or even what it means though.

In my defense however, I have been drinking rum for at least the last three hours.

[modest]

You went and made me look up a new word. :)

 

Bonus

 

Still don't think I really understand how it applies or even what it means though. :( :bouquet:

In my defense however, I have been drinking rum for at least the last three hours.

 

Well... if you know how long you've been drinking it then I reckon you haven't been drinking it long enough

 

Here hides the chiasmus: "though I define god, only god defines definition"

 

~modest

[maikeru]

You are quite right in a way but it is the definition that counts - personally I see God as Go(o)d. To me it is not a person but an attitude, which when I'm in it makes perfect sense of everything because I am connected to everything (elation as a state). It is overwhelming and keeps me busy like a juggling act because it doesn't give me time to slip into the (D)evil side of things (yes I'm playing with words here to make a point). Like Einstein I believe 'Mystery' is what drives us on to explore as finding answers destroys that curiosity and makes us self-indulgent (materialistic/ unadventurous). To me g(o)od is unity, co-operation, connection to the greater whole, creation, having a clean slate (returning to innocence): We make Go(o)d in our unity and the (d)evil by our disunity or to quote Sherman 'War is hell'.

 

I have a problem with defining and conceptualizing "good" and "evil" as well, but my objection is similar to what Clay mentioned. IMO, these are subjective and highly debatable and widely open to interpretation--possibly to the point where no real objective consensus can be reached, but that often does not matter as much in practice as a subjective and group-based consensus. Basically, I think "good" and "evil" come down to what people wish and define them as. They are imaginary categories that do not exist in an objective reality. (I.e, figments of our imagination that we use to model, construct, and live in a "reality" we create. Just as we think of our "lives" and "world" as separate from the "world out there" or "nature" or "environment." In fact, there is no clear or immediate division--there is no division--we live in the world, we are of the world, we are creatures of the world; how we act and think is a different matter). If I am concerned with what is real in an objective reality, I should not be obsessed with the indefinable and debatable notions of "good" and "evil." I need to be honest: I am a subjective man living in an objective world.

 

I understand and personally think there are evolutionary reasons for why humans often think in terms of "good" and "evil" but not everything that evolution evolved is "good" or "bad." This is the rather startling realization that evolution allows, with some liberties taken from my favorite Western, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Imperfection is inherent in the process and makes it possible. Imperfection is also inherent in the human psyche and humans. Humans are "imperfect" by "design."

 

I also must be open and knowing that sometimes "evil" can bring about "good," and "good" can bring about "evil." I'm not concerned any longer with the "problem of evil" in the world and that in actuality there is no paradox because I see it as an illusory problem. If "good" and "evil" do not truly exist, there is no true conflict between these two diametrically opposed concepts. How does one add up or sum up notions of meaninglessness? Can one take a square root of it?

 

Problem of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Instead, this suggests to me there are infinite shades of "grey." I should focus on living my life as it is and can and will be. In a sense, it opens up the doors of freedom and thought and gives a great sense of peace, to finally realize there was no problem to fret over or trouble with. Furthermore, I think the great task of man is not how to further his work, thoughts, and habits, but to unlearn and let go of his useless work, useless thoughts, and useless habits. Progress can only come when we make consolidated, sustainable, cumulative gains.

 

I wish InfiniteNow was still here, but we used to spend time discussing these types of things. I found his thoughts and comments informative and formative on my own.

[paigetheoracle]

Listening to a program On BBC Radio 4 yesterday, 'God on my Mind,' the point was made that the more secure we feel, the less we need to believe in God. The Middle East was brought up in connection with this and compared to The West (Northern Ireland should also have been mentioned), which was seen as more secular.

 

I personally believe awe and wonder (the sacred) is a sign of youth and that aging (the mature outlook) is naturally more jaded. This is like the post, 'There are 2 types of people in the world...' in the Water Cooler section, that pointed out that there are actually three types - the master, who knows it all and can do it all (the bored roue - seen it, been there, done it); the apprentice, who observes and learns it all (on the cusp of discovery) and the idiot child, who is bowled over by the effect (blinded by the light). Atheism is the natural end of the journey that starts with wonder therefore. Children are naturally insecure (and awed by the world, alternatively) because it is all new to them, where to the adult it is all ordinary and known (Not that dangerous if you treat things with respect).

 

My migraines have taught me that we need energy to be in the world, which drives our senses and makes us conscious. This conscious awareness allows to adapt to where we find ourselves in the present and to then adapt what we find to our growing needs.

When I have a migraine attack, I lose sensory awareness and physical control, which leads to conflict as dominance and presence is lessened and this is probably in my opinion, what we see happening in areas of conflict (see insecurity above and circular nature of this situation).

 

This is probably my last post on this subject (see Water Cooler 'Bye for now!') as Spring and physical activities have called me back into the outside world, including house painting.

[CerebralEcstasy]

"GOD is the name commonly given to the ultimate source and power of the universe and the subject of religious devotion," says The Encyclopedia Americana. A dictionary defines the term "God" as "the supreme or ultimate reality."

 

Some food for thought....

 

Romans 1:20-23

 

20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;

[paigetheoracle]

Isn't science about finding ultimate definitions for reality, rather than limited subjective ones? In other words terms that describe a phenomena that covers a whole subject, rather than is limited to opinion as with things that apply locally (or appears to), rather than universally.

 

Another point about this - it's not a question of being on the receiving or giving end and liking it/ not liking it (opinion) but judging result as in law: Did 'B' knock down the wall or not; not did 'A' like him doing it. Vested interest has nothing to do with real science as it should be dispassionate observation of facts, not how people feel about them (effects/ results/ consequences). This is why I define evil as destructive acts and the negative thoughts that accompany them - observable results as with the opposite, constructive thoughts and actions - hence we make Go(o)d in our unity and The (D)evil by our disunity but that doesn't stop reality (The Whole Thing) being composed of both, which is observable fact is it not?

 

By the way, temporarily back - It's raining, it's pouring and I can't do any gardening until it clears up as that is an observable, muddy fact!

[Boerseun]

God is the sum total of human insecurities.

[C1ay]

"GOD is the name commonly given to the ultimate source and power of the universe and the subject of religious devotion," says The Encyclopedia Americana. A dictionary defines the term "God" as "the supreme or ultimate reality."

 

Some food for thought....

 

Two specific references out of thousands. If "God" had 'A' meaning it wouldn't mean something different to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Pantheists, Panentheists, Cosmotheists, Infinitheists, Gnostics, etc., etc. There are thousands of religions and thousands of definitions for 'God'. IT IS NOT A CONCISE TERM....

[Enariel]

So mostly you hear three points of view or opinions about "God"

 

1 - Science or Materialist - God dose not exist because - no one ever seen god or have proven god dose exist

 

2 - Religious people - god exist! Tho most of them fail to explain why and how they know it or how they have proven to them self of God's existence

 

3 - and the ones who don't give any damn about both above and thinking its all crap any way

 

It simply depends what People consider under word God - if old man in heaven then surely this is completely silly. But What if by God actually means Self aware Being who creates, yet - this consciousness awareness that people calling God - is not a form - its formless and thus you can not define god based on form on any image you can Imagen - it simply beyond form. So you can not actual see god as some kind of specific define form. To prove it scientifically and not going beyond the mental box would be same silliness as to say that god is old man with beard.

 

Now if we take in consideration that God is self aware Conscious, formless. How do we simply by just paying careful attention and ponder a bit about facts and logic would prove from scientific view point that God, supreme mind, or force or what ever you like to call this, that is actually exist?

 

Lets take a look into Universe! Look at all thous stars, complex galaxies, complex life on planet earth and pay attention how Delicately and carefully the laws are balanced. How could possibility earth and life and such complex galaxies been created by unconscious force on its on? Why its impossible? Well Self aware consciousness Directs its creativity to form up a specific forms - for example you making a snow ball - would snow ball possibly be exist if you ,as self aware Consciousness being would not create such a form as snow ball? With out your interference snow will simply what? Will stay still. Is this logical enough to see that unconsciousness force can not create?

 

So then we see Planets that are created such a way that they are not destroying each other but look - they are Perfectly balanced and placed on orbits! So then - who have defined such a law of balance and placed planets on their orbits if not a Self Aware Conscious Being? You still hesitating about such Mind to exist? Well as scientist I would do an experiment. For example we have an empty room and I through out to the floor a few different balls what will happened? You perfectly know what - they will go into all different directions - I was the first cause of thous balls to go to different directions before me they were just standing still - nothing happened. And now I take same balls and do what? I will create a Star System and place Sun into center that will hold on planets and put planets that way that they would not destroy each other - Again Self aware consciousness creates.

 

It answers two questions: what do I defined by God and how do I prove its existence.

 

Dare to challenge if you wish. :)

[Moontanman]

Lets take a look into Universe! Look at all thous stars, complex galaxies, complex life on planet earth and pay attention how Delicately and carefully the laws are balanced. How could possibility earth and life and such complex galaxies been created by unconscious force on its on? Why its impossible? Well Self aware consciousness Directs its creativity to form up a specific forms - for example you making a snow ball - would snow ball possibly be exist if you ,as self aware Consciousness being would not create such a form as snow ball? With out your interference snow will simply what? Will stay still. Is this logical enough to see that unconsciousness force can not create?

 

This totally not true, snow can and will move with no outside "creative force" Snow balls roll down hills and grow under the right circumstances, no outside creative force is required just the correct conditions.

 

So then we see Planets that are created such a way that they are not destroying each other but look - they are Perfectly balanced and placed on orbits! So then - who have defined such a law of balance and placed planets on their orbits if not a Self Aware Conscious Being? You still hesitating about such Mind to exist? Well as scientist I would do an experiment. For example we have an empty room and I through out to the floor a few different balls what will happened? You perfectly know what - they will go into all different directions - I was the first cause of thous balls to go to different directions before me they were just standing still - nothing happened. And now I take same balls and do what? I will create a Star System and place Sun into center that will hold on planets and put planets that way that they would not destroy each other - Again Self aware consciousness creates.

 

No, randomly throwing balls into a room and the orbits of planets is not a correct analogy, planets form and orbit according to knowable laws not random chance. I suggest you look into why planets orbit and how they are formed.

 

It answers two questions: what do I defined by God and how do I prove its existence.

 

Dare to challenge if you wish. :)

 

I just did, your ideas are not proof of anything.

[Enariel]

This totally not true, snow can and will move with no outside "creative force" Snow balls roll down hills and grow under the right circumstances, no outside creative force is required just the correct conditions.

 

 

 

No, randomly throwing balls into a room and the orbits of planets is not a correct analogy, planets form and orbit according to knowable laws not random chance. I suggest you look into why planets orbit and how they are formed.

 

 

 

I just did, your ideas are not proof of anything.

 

Okay if you put it this way - I'll rephrase myself - Lets Creative force be = creative law now.

 

It will not? But if it will not why dose it moves? Isn't it not because of law? And who had defined such law? Who or what have preset this law to work that way that snow ball will move if wind will blow or we push it down from hill?

 

 

I actually did not say that they placed randomly :) for I'm point out to self aware mind to create them.

[Moontanman]

So your contention is that God is "first cause" If you believe in God I'll say that is a reasonable contention.

[Enariel]

So your contention is that God is "first cause" If you believe in God I'll say that is a reasonable contention.

 

Again, I'm pointing out that there is Self aware conscious mind, and that with out conscious mind you can not simply create complex form based on "randomness" or coincidence or "conditions are good and planet born" every thing balanced and it request intellectual being to create such complex universe and set up laws to up hold such structure and life - of such Being scientist simply ignorant but that cant explain who then and what for created all of it. For every thing has a purpose.

 

Well Believe means "you never taste an apple but you believe that it taste like apple" believe is not my path but observation is the way I ponder through and making logical conclusion with out taking any side - religious or scientific. and it is quite logical to looking at many things and see that there is some thing science simply not willing to acknowledge at all or just take at list as a consideration for start.

[Moontanman]

Again, I'm pointing out that there is Self aware conscious mind, and that with out conscious mind you can not simply create complex form based on "randomness" or coincidence or "conditions are good and planet born" every thing balanced and it request intellectual being to create such complex universe and set up laws to up hold such structure and life - of such Being scientist simply ignorant but that cant explain who then and what for created all of it. For every thing has a purpose.

 

First of all this thread is not about proving God, it's about your definition of God. Secondly yes you can have our universe with out a creator, yes it can exist based on randomness.

 

Well Believe means "you never taste an apple but you believe that it taste like apple" believe is not my path but observation is the way I ponder through and making logical conclusion with out taking any side - religious or scientific. and it is quite logical to looking at many things and see that there is some thing science simply not willing to acknowledge at all or just take at list as a consideration for start.

 

No you are not being neutral about the idea of God, you are asserting Gods existence due to your own inability to understand how our universe can operate without a guiding intelligence. There is no observable evidence for the existence of God. This is an argument for another thread not this one.

 

If you take the time to go through the threads you find plenty of threads about the existence of God and your contention that everything has a purpose or first cause has been disputed many times.

[pamela]

hello Enariel,

Welcome to Hypography :)

 

Again, I'm pointing out that there is Self aware conscious mind, and that with out conscious mind you can not simply create complex form based on "randomness" or coincidence or "conditions are good and planet born" every thing balanced and it request intellectual being to create such complex universe and set up laws to up hold such structure and life - of such Being scientist simply ignorant but that cant explain who then and what for created all of it. For every thing has a purpose.

Purpose? Or cause and effect?

Well Believe means "you never taste an apple but you believe that it taste like apple" believe is not my path but observation is the way I ponder through and making logical conclusion with out taking any side - religious or scientific. and it is quite logical to looking at many things and see that there is some thing science simply not willing to acknowledge at all or just take at list as a consideration for start.

It is not about willing to acknowledge, it is about empirical evidence. Why take that which is "supposed" as a starting point? You claim observance earlier in this thread, what evidence have you seen in order to postulate this?