Moving along with the `Do you believe in God thread` we must surely first have a definition.

this presupposes a belief in god.

Originally posted by venger
Moving along with the `Do you believe in God thread` we must surely first have a definition.

Agreed, but I think technicaly thats moving backwards not forwards!

To be honest I think "What is your definition of God" is actually the harder question to answer. Once you are agreed on the definition the question of the existence is probably solved.

It seems to me there are certain things of a "theological" quality which we do not have answers for.

Some people will always look to God to answer these problems, some will look to Science.

Some (Like me) will say that fundamentally whether you describe the solution in terms of God or Science it does not really matter, its just 2 different ways of describing the same thing.

What is your perception of God?

I think the worst you could say about him is that basically he is an underachiever.


(appologies to woody allen ;) )

I think that the only defination of god that can stand up to any scrutiny is:

The creator of the universe, that is to say something that sparked off existence, and from a time that is unknowable at present.

Any other defination will be easily dispatched by Epicurean reasoning.

M

time only exists within the universe, so something that created it must exist outside of time, not from an unknowable time.
it must also exist out of space as that's part of the universe we exist in.

I agree with Yoda wholeheartedly. Without labels, science religion & philosophy would all be methods of trying to answer the same question. And if you pushed them all far enough the answer will have to be the same.

That's more than enough depth for a Monday lunchtime.

maybe God is actually our souls?

OK Cyclone, you're right so perhaps it needs to read:

The creator of universe.

If we then try to add any qualifying comments they can then be dismissed for example:

"it must also exist out of space as that's part of the universe we exist in."

The inference here is that god would not be imnipotent or indeed omnipresent.

So we are left with just an irrational article of faith, but atleast one that cannot be contested because of people's acceptance of faith.

M

Okay. You asked.

'When two or three are gathered in my name, I will be there.' - God

God is basically the force of good. It has already been scientifically proven (and disbelieved) that 'mind over matter' does actually work, so if a few people get together with the intention of sharing pleasant feelings and thoughts, they create 'god'.

This is my basic gripe with many religions. They incite hatred amongst their following. My experience of cathololocism includes much intimidation and subservience. And as for some of the 'fire and brimstone' brigade....

But to follow this theory through, God gets to go to a lot of parties!! :partyhat: :D

you speak about good as if it's something intrinsic to the world.

it's not, it's a concept we've made up and it's defined by morality, which is something else we've made up.

there is no 'force for good' no more than there is a 'force for evil'. they are just concepts we use to describe the morality we attribute to actions.

Originally posted by Cyclone
this presupposes a belief in god.

it also presupposes that god is definable.

"it also presupposes that god is definable."

But is we assume that we cannot define god, then what is the basis for religion?

How can follow any religion, or indeed our own thoughts if we cannot conceptualise god. It is an impossibility and means that god is irrelevent to our lives.

M

Originally posted by Mattski
"it also presupposes that god is definable."

But is we assume that we cannot define god, then what is the basis for religion?

How can follow any religion, or indeed our own thoughts if we cannot conceptualise god. It is an impossibility and means that god is irrelevent to our lives.

M

Well that's one possible definition of God:-

"Everything in the Universe that we cannot conceptualise"

Yoda,

Perhaps that is one definition but then how do you know what is god and what is schizophrenia?

Although looking at my last post there must have been some demonic influence to make so many important words disappear!

MUST PROOF READ!!

M

Originally posted by Mattski
Yoda,

Perhaps that is one definition but then how do you know what is god and what is schizophrenia?

Although looking at my last post there must have been some demonic influence to make so many important words disappear!

MUST PROOF READ!!

M

I didn't say it was a definition I agreed with.

BUT, I don't believe the universe was put here for our benefit, so why should God or The Meaning Of The Universe make sense to us?

It may do, but it would be more by luck than judgement in my opinion.

Sorry Yoda,

My comment wasn't addressed specifically to you but as a general observation on that particular definition.

I agree that we are not the centre of the universe but to accept that there is a god then you have to assume that humans are the primary concern of 'the creator'. All religion is about being a 'loved one' or a 'chosen race' or some such nonsense.

The very existence of religion surely stems from peoples failure to understand the universe, and yet perversely religion offers no answers, just empty reassurances. This is because we cannot conceptualise many facets of the universe.

Of course, science continues to make discovers and as it does the definitions of god will recede. Before the development of cosmology it was simple to define god as "the one who makes the sun shine".

This is why I believe that we can only define god as an abstract. However, to this is different from what we cannot conceptualise.

M

No need to apologise, I was just clarifying that I agreed with you it wasnt a very good definition, but you've got to start somewhere, that probably wasn't the best place to start.

One definition used in the 17th Century originally was
"Everything that exists with no cause"

Its quite a good starting point I think. It has of course been picked apart by later philosophers, but that is what philosophy is all about really!

Yoda,

One definition used in the 17th Century originally was
"Everything that exists with no cause"

I think that may have been OK for the pre-enlightenment age but as we now can see, the causes of manifold events are being explained in new and exciting ways all the time through science.

We're basically stripping the powers of god day by day until all that is left is that which cannot be proved or disproved, leaving an unquantifiable abstraction. I would rather live in The Real, a desert though it may be.

M

Originally posted by Cyclone
you speak about good as if it's something intrinsic to the world.

it's not, it's a concept we've made up and it's defined by morality, which is something else we've made up.

there is no 'force for good' no more than there is a 'force for evil'. they are just concepts we use to describe the morality we attribute to actions. So how do you explain a room having 'an atmosphere'?

What is your perception of God?

If he/she exists [and I very much doubt it]............. sad, twisted git, with the sickest sense of humour in the Universe!:loopy:

Originally posted by venger
Moving along with the `Do you believe in God thread` we must surely first have a definition.
Who??

Originally posted by Strix
So how do you explain a room having 'an atmosphere'?

for a start i'd describe that as a linguistic tool. It doesn't mean literally what it says as hopefully none of your rooms are perfect vacuums. So it's a very shorthand way of saying that you are detecting numerous subtle body languange clues from the people in a room that indicate a certain level of tension or conflict between them.

Or it could be (if you mean empty rooms) that the decor and/or architecture of a room brings to mind certain feelings (based on your world knowledge).

For example, a room with a stone floor, sloping towards the centre where a drain appears to sit, damp, dark and with rusty chains hanging from the walls might make you feel uncomfortable.
Whether that's because people were tortured there, or the room was constructed yesterday in a film set is completely irrelevant. The assumptions that you make whilst classifying everything in the room cause emotions in your poor chemical brain which fool you into saying that the room has a 'feeling'.

As a general rule the main problem with a human beings definition of God is that he presumes that God exsists and thinks as humans do. We do that because we need to define god in terms which makes some kind of sense to us.
But I believe "God" is not a 'being" an "entity" with a value system that religions have taught. God is the energy of the universe, the energy that drives everything, the planets, the oceans, nature and cycles in human exsistance. We if we choose, can also utilise this energy, the Chi. All this means is that we do what we intuitively know to be right, go with our gut level feelings. But, mostly we choose to work against it, paddle against the tide and in so doing create all sorts of problem for ourselves. Simple really !

Originally posted by Banksia
As a general rule the main problem with a human beings definition of God is that he presumes that God exsists and thinks as humans do. We do that because we need to define god in terms which makes some kind of sense to us.
But I believe "God" is not a 'being" an "entity" with a value system that religions have taught. God is the energy of the universe, the energy that drives everything, the planets, the oceans, nature and cycles in human exsistance. We if we choose, can also utilise this energy, the Chi. All this means is that we do what we intuitively know to be right, go with our gut level feelings. But, mostly we choose to work against it, paddle against the tide and in so doing create all sorts of problem for ourselves. Simple really !

do you mean gravity? fighting against gravity is futile, no matter how hard i flap my arms i'm stuck to this damn planet.

God is a DJ, life is the dancefloor, love is the rythm, you get what your given...surely?!!!

Originally posted by Banksia
As a general rule the main problem with a human beings definition of God is that he presumes that God exsists and thinks as humans do. We do that because we need to define god in terms which makes some kind of sense to us.
But I believe "God" is not a 'being" an "entity" with a value system that religions have taught. God is the energy of the universe, the energy that drives everything, the planets, the oceans, nature and cycles in human exsistance. We if we choose, can also utilise this energy, the Chi. All this means is that we do what we intuitively know to be right, go with our gut level feelings. But, mostly we choose to work against it, paddle against the tide and in so doing create all sorts of problem for ourselves. Simple really !

YES YES YES YES YES (we have a winner) ... well said Banksia.

It's a feeling thing ... not a thinking thing ... 'god' is not a religious concept (infact for me it has nothing to do with religion and the word 'god' is redundant) ... it is not something you can approach intellectually ... and it is more subtle than your very thoughts ... you have to feel with your whole being ... the presence of energy ... energy that flows through and nurtures all living things ...

Originally posted by Jamie
YES YES YES YES YES (we have a winner) ... well said Banksia.

It's a feeling thing ... not a thinking thing ... 'god' is not a religious concept (infact for me it has nothing to do with religion and the word 'god' is redundant) ... it is not something you can approach intellectually ... and it is more subtle than your very thoughts ... you have to feel with your whole being ... the presence of energy ... energy that flows through and nurtures all living things ...

It's good to know that at least one person knows what I'm talking about and I had a feeling you would show up Jamie.
When I read some of the input on this kind of subject my head spins with all the clever words and philosophising. The discussion winds up sounding so complex that only someone with a university degree could unravel the mystery of God. But... it really isn't complex is it, why can't more people see the simplicity of it ? I'm damned if I know !!

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
God is a DJ, life is the dancefloor, love is the rythm, you get what your given...surely?!!!

No... you get what you think you deserve.

Originally posted by Banksia
It's good to know that at least one person knows what I'm talking about and I had a feeling you would show up Jamie.
When I read some of the input on this kind of subject my head spins with all the clever words and philosophising. The discussion winds up sounding so complex that only someone with a university degree could unravel the mystery of God. But... it really isn't complex is it, why can't more people see the simplicity of it ? I'm damned if I know !!

That is your perception of God.

The problem for me arises with the the notion of perception, and not with any definition of god, since that is whatever rings your bell, informing your choices throughout life. There are a lot of paths out there.

Your perceptions are a creative symphony spontaneously generated within the biological substrate the brain. You can be confident that your perceptions are unique to you, if you can accept that you, as an individual biological entity, exist.

Simply in order to agree with someone else on their perception of god means forcing that symphony of creative intent through the narrow channel of language (unless you are telepathic).

By reducing your perceptions of god to symbols, you have already omitted huge amounts of information, and you rely on the receiver to unpack the meaning correctly.

And of course the receiver then has to do the job of perceiving your message in order to receive it.

Understanding perception, qalia, the experience of being, is a necessary step to refining a concept of god in the widest possible meaning.

But as an earlier poster mentioned, and as mojoworking observed in another thread altogether - Ludvig Wittgenstein had it right when he said (words to the effect) - "that which cannot be spoken about must be passed over in silence".

Some things escape language altogether - god is one of them.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That is your perception of God.

The problem for me arises with the the notion of perception, and not with any definition of god, since that is whatever rings your bell, informing your choices throughout life. There are a lot of paths out there.

Your perceptions are a creative symphony spontaneously generated within the biological substrate the brain. You can be confident that your perceptions are unique to you, if you can accept that you, as an individual biological entity, exist.

Simply in order to agree with someone else on their perception of god means forcing that symphony of creative intent through the narrow channel of language (unless you are telepathic).

By reducing your perceptions of god to symbols, you have already omitted huge amounts of information, and you rely on the receiver to unpack the meaning correctly.

And of course the receiver then has to do the job of perceiving your message in order to receive it.

Understanding perception, qalia, the experience of being, is a necessary step to refining a concept of god in the widest possible meaning.

But as an earlier poster mentioned, and as mojoworking observed in another thread altogether - Ludvig Wittgenstein had it right when he said (words to the effect) - "that which cannot be spoken about must be passed over in silence".

Some things escape language altogether - god is one of them.


PARDON !!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That is your perception of God.

The problem for me arises with the the notion of perception, and not with any definition of god, since that is whatever rings your bell, informing your choices throughout life. There are a lot of paths out there.

Your perceptions are a creative symphony spontaneously generated within the biological substrate the brain. You can be confident that your perceptions are unique to you, if you can accept that you, as an individual biological entity, exist.

Simply in order to agree with someone else on their perception of god means forcing that symphony of creative intent through the narrow channel of language (unless you are telepathic).

By reducing your perceptions of god to symbols, you have already omitted huge amounts of information, and you rely on the receiver to unpack the meaning correctly.

And of course the receiver then has to do the job of perceiving your message in order to receive it.

Understanding perception, qalia, the experience of being, is a necessary step to refining a concept of god in the widest possible meaning.

But as an earlier poster mentioned, and as mojoworking observed in another thread altogether - Ludvig Wittgenstein had it right when he said (words to the effect) - "that which cannot be spoken about must be passed over in silence".

Some things escape language altogether - god is one of them.

To a lesser extent you could use that argument to say that all philosophical debate is a waste of time because you are using language to describe things that fundamentally are not connected with language.

What you need to is improve the language to be able to describe better what you mean.

Yes, you could, and in an one sense I think you'd be right - but pragmatically you can talk about some things with a greater degree of confidence that the receiver will understand you because of the plethora of shared references etc.

But the problem with perceptions of god, as opposed to say perceptions of a particular carrot, is that we can arrive at a concensus about the qualities of the carrot more easily than we can about those of god.

We can use language and meta language to refine our common ideas of what constitutes a carrot.

Where experience strays into the numinous realm, like religious experience, the experiences tend to be totally subjective. These are typically the moments people describe as religious, or spiritual, or ecstatic. They are the inexplicable sensations of "the other", that can also be terrifying, and these experiences, amongst others, are often perceived as "god".

It is as if these experiences are beyond language by definition and escape the grasp or scope of the rational/linguistic mind altogether. Which makes any speculation about the nature of them not pointless, because to relate these experiences serves other purposes than a simple "search for truth". It is an attempt, as you suggest, to combine experiences and improve the language used to better relate to the experience. But it is a chicken and egg situation. With a carrot, you can point to it and say it's "pointy at one end". People can see what you mean by that. On the other hand when you describe a religious experience it is usually
a)after the fact - so you are describing your memory of an experience
b)an event that ocurred primarily in your own mind, making observation and concensus difficult.

Wittgenstein wrote tractatus, and then abandoned philosophy for years thinking he had pretty much wrapped it up in a logical treatise! What self confidence eh?

He later recanted it as he grew more interested in language and how it relates to reality.

Hey P,

It's interesting that you mention 'The Other' here.

Particularly, if we look at Lacanian theory it is postulated (and generally accepted in pyschoanalytic circles) that we can only experience The Other through their signifiers, and that any communication is between our signifiers and their signifiers. In simple terms, we never experience The Other directly but through our language meeeting theirs.

Now if we accept this, how can we talk about communicating with The Other if they do not have any signifiers (i.e god)?

This is a bit of a digression, but I think an interesting one as it allows us to think about whether god can be The Other or just a fictional object.

M

Mattski

I think that psychoanalysts need to experience 'the other' in order to see the unity of it with no division possible. it is what it appears to be - there is no distinction between Signifier and Signified. In many ways this helps to explain why experiences of the other, and the oceanic, are essentially incommunicable, and why, when described, the only available signifiers are poor matches for the experience itself.

It is this awareness of the other and the oceanic (god and infinity, whatever) at some background level, that drives human spirituality.

For me it is a question that does yield to explorations of the right kind, and that is precisely what I believe dozens of spiritual and religious disciplines have been concerned with over the millennia: Refining methods to use in exploration of the other and the oceanic, a way of finding the right signifiers which can then be released into the 'uninitiated'.

I might be wide of the mark, but that is what I am thinking this morning.

'Know yourself and you will know God.'

'Speak to others according to their own level of understanding'.


- A couple of quotes I thought I would share at this point.



_=moodi :)