defining God

[ArmsMerchant]

There has been a lot of talk lately about defining atheism, but little discussion of what exactly it is that atheists don't believe in. I bring this up because over the years, I have spoken with many atheists who don't believe in the jealous, petty deity portrayed inthe Bible, but seem to think that the Santa Claus in the sky model is the only god available.

I felt much the same way, over forty years ago. Once, at age fifteen, Christianity made sense for about twenty minutes, which was how long it took me to suss out the many absurdities and outright contradictions in "God's word." Thinking that the Christian god was the only option, I rejected it. That was the god of the old paradigm, to use Deepak Chopra's term.

Today, the God I know and communicate with, and enjoy a relationship with, is not a discrete entity--that notion limits God, and God is ,by definition, infinite. God is more the sentient and loving intelligence and energy that permeates all life and binds us all together. This God does not judge, reward or punish--we humans are all too good at that. While there is but one Ultimate Reality, we create our own individual realities, including our own heavens and hells. God is infinite, and God is everything. Can we grok God in fullness?

I think not, being that our apprehension is finite. By some definition, that may make me an agnostic; but byo ther definitions, I am a neo-gnostic, as I have experienced, directly, the divine through the seventh level of consciousness.

I do recognize various and sundry spirits, devas, and discarnate entities, all of which--like all of us--together make up God--the Great Spirit--which makes me a polytheist or pagan, I guess. None of them do, I think, have any sort of corporeal form, however.

One reason we have this difficulty with God is due to a linguistic quirk of the Hebrew language--that is, it has no neuter pronoun, so God has to be He or She. I think the Hindus are closer to the mark when they talk about Atman, or j just That.

[redzed]

Originally Posted by ArmsMerchant

I do recognize various and sundry spirits, devas, and discarnate entities, all of which--like all of us--together make up God--the Great Spirit.

It's been said that those who reject God are actually rejecting another persons ideas about god. It's all in the definition. IMHO the term "Aggregate of all Being" is useful as a definition, or "All there is". It's a question that's been debated for time immemorial however everyone has a god - when god is defined as the 'highest, or controlling principle'. Whilst science is yet to agree on the definition or ultimate equation describing all existence, the simple assertion that "God is who/whatever one serves" is the one I find most useful. Bob Dylan wrote a song about it: "You're going to have to serve somebody". Everyone has a central idea in their mind, something that is the controlling principle of their thoughts, thus their life, therefore their God.

[Man-Erg]

God is.

Thats the only definition you really need.

[AnalDisco]

Could you please rephrase that using unambiguous, objective terms? I was not aware, for example, that some energy binds me to a cane toad across the planet. In fact, I don't even know how I'd begin to measure and prove the existence of such energy or how to define the bond. That's where I'd like a little more detail.

And I don't think Plato really had a concept of an "Ultimate Reality" in his forms that works with your statement. He did propose that things share certain qualities (such as redness, sharpness, sweetness, etc.), and that there were ultimate forms of these qualities that were above worldly observation, but it was more of a philosophical proposal than a justification of some supernatural entities that actually exist somewhere. I think the closest thing to what you're proposing that Plato believed in was a form of ultimate "goodness", but Aristotle punched holes in this by pointing out that goodness is just capability of a thing to fulfill its purpose--a knife is good because it is sharp, a dog is good because it is loyal, and so on.

And even their philosophies were still not grounded on sound scientific reasoning. Once you get that down, and do a really good job of explaining god in terms of actual existing energy or matter, I think you have a better chance of convincing people.

See, atheists for the most part do believe in an infinite presence. Except we call it the universe and various dimensions of time and space, and we don't call it compassionate or intelligent or anything like that. Personification is good in stories. In science? Not so much.

[Vanhalla]

I've posted this in a few other threads, but I think this idea is a good way of thinking of a 'God.'

Logos, a term used by Greek philosopher Heraclitus to describe the underlying force of the universe. Logos translates to "word" but can also mean "principle" or "order," and is associated with the laws of nature. To Greeks, logic was the guiding force of the universe, giving it structure and form. In an individual the logos can be said to be the higher self, the oversoul or monad, the divine wise part of the self.

In ascension lore, the Logos is the higher self of creation. As there are many levels of each individual being paralleling the many levels of creation, the Logos manifests on many levels. Each Logos is responsible for the development of life in its domain. The concept of the Cosmic Logos is the closest thing we can understand as the creator of all universes, and all reality. From the Cosmic Logos flows the Universal Logos. The Universal Logos is epitomized by the Great Central Sun of our universe. It is the holy, formless fire in the center of the universe, or the mythical "Secret Fire" from The Fellowship of the Ring, which Gandalf describes as his true master. Gandalf, as a force of harmony, serves this Secret Fire and uses its power to stop the demonic Balrog. The universal fire is found in many traditions, myth, and stories. The flow continues to the Galactic Logos, the Solar Logos, and finally the Planetary Logos level. Each universe has its own prime higher self, as does each galaxy, solar system, and planet.

Each Logos is the prime center of power for that structure's hierarchy. The Universal Logos has its own hierarchy, as does the Galactic Logos of our galaxy, and so on through the cycle to the planetary level. Each Logos has several beings in charge of various functions of its being, the administrators of that part of reality. Each is responsible for shaping that level of creation.

One can think of the structure of each system in a manner similar to the Gaia hypothesis. We are like cells in the body of the Earth, as are all living things. Each has its own purpose for the greater functioning of the being, just as the cells within the organs of our body have their own individual purpose. Each planet is like an organ in the solar being's body. Each star is part of the galactic being's body. Each galaxy is a part of the universal being's body, and each universe is a part of the cosmic being's body. Each "cell," each "organ," is alive, and each level of beings has a higher self, a spiritual Logos, guiding this level.

[socratic]

The general idea I had of a 'God' was an omnipotent, omniscient being, which I was of the impression that most people meant when they started arguing philosophy or theology.

The multitude of other definitions are generally considered equally nonexistent, if I am correct, by the same identical logic.

[Obbe]

I am God, God is all.

I think Brahman comes close.

[socratic]

Originally Posted by Obbe

I am God, God is all.

I think Brahman comes close.

Why do you appropriate Hindu terminology to explain Solipsism?

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by socratic

Why do you appropriate Hindu terminology to explain Solipsism?

Its a lot easier then explaining it all.

[AnalDisco]

Originally Posted by Obbe

Its a lot easier then explaining it all.

Maybe if you spoke coherent English I wouldn't think you're a cockbasket who posts pseudo-intellectual new-age bullshit that you don't understand.

Alas.