What is God? An answer.

[Obbe]

Looks like that one thread sunk into the bowels of Totse. Oh well, I wanted to start my own anyway. Heres the best explanation of my concept of God I could muster ... and no, I haven't been working on it this whole time I've been absent. I wrote the majority of this today.

Everyone, please feel free to present an argument. But for the sake of discussion, lets keep things in layman's terms ... this means you Hare.

* * * * *
God is the absolute truth, and the allness and oneness of 'reality'.
* * * * *

With few exceptions, the definitions of God used by atheists and most religious theists are not only incomplete and often misunderstood, but are also based solely upon assumptions. To atheists, the absence of 'known truth' is what makes these definitions seem so obviously false (or at least seem to lack logical reason for belief).

Some atheists see belief in these definitions as the keystones of the various religious elites ability's to manipulate society, and should be eliminated for the good of all. I agree with part of this, that organized religion is a tyrannic system used to manipulate society to the ends of selfish individuals. I too disagree with the authoritarian way most religions dictate 'truth' to the masses, as spirituality and an understanding of reality should be an individuals to discover and grow for themselves. Organized religions are corrupt and push us apart instead of uniting us.

All to obviously, however, I am not an atheist. I do not lack a belief in God. No, I do not believe in any one of the various definitions of God atheists also lack belief in, but in my opinion these definitions are not true representations of God. The God I write of is not based solely on assumptions, but is all that can be known to be true.

I believe that the God I write of is much more similar to the understanding of reality that individually spiritual people had thousands of years ago, then to the definitions used by the corrupt religions which such understandings have developed into over the ages by the manipulation of selfish individuals. Religion should unite us in peace and aid the individual in discovering an understanding of reality and the true meaning of God, but do quite the opposite.

Atheists lack a belief in God (the Christian God, for example) because they have not experienced any evidence of such a Gods existence. During a discussion, a Christian might claim the bible as being evidence of their definition of God. And an atheist would then state that the bible cannot be known to be true either, there is no logical reason to believe the bible, and therefore still no reason to believe in God.

Some atheists go so far as to call theists insane people for buying into a false reality without a logical reason. But is their really a solid line running between true and false? Reality, and illusion?

A man lives in an insane asylum. All day long he sits in a padded cell which, from his perspective, is always filled with 5 other people with different, unique personalities, and who never stop bothering him and never leave the room. There is a sixth person he knows of, who visits the room to give him medication everyday. From her perspective, she is the only other person in the room besides the man she gives medication to. She believes the man to be insane and experiencing illusions, a false reality. The nurse leaves the room and continues on her daily tasks, completely unaware that the insane man, her daily routine and every experience she has ... are all actually illusions, and she herself lives completely insane in a padded cell.

An atheist is right when making the claim that there is no reason to believe the Christian God is true, when they have had no experiences of such and no reason to believe the bible. They cannot know its real. But why stop there? They cannot know the theist they are arguing with actually exists, or is an illusion. Why not question the world which appears to be around them, the reality which appears to be true? What is the difference?

If asked this, the atheist may reply “...because I am experiencing this, I have memories and life lessons, I just know it.” They would feel much like the 'insane' man in the story above, or the nurse who thought he existed. Obviously, we cannot know if what we experience is reality or illusion, we just believe our experiences to be one or the other.

At this point, an individual realizing the actual extent of their knowledge may begin to wonder what they really do know to be reality, what they can know to be absolutely true. They cannot know experiences to be real or to be illusions to a true reality. But obviously, they know of their existence. They know that 'I AM' ... but not the validity of any experiences.

What is 'I AM'? 'I AM' is recognition of existence, of being. The experiences of this being can still not be known to be true or illusory, all that can be known to be true is the beings simple existence. Therefore simply 'being' is absolute truth.

When making the assumptions that certain experiences are true (such as the memories of living a life) how do we determine that other experiences are illusions? By comparing them with what we already know (or believe we know) is true. An example of this is the nurse assuming that the man in the padded cell had illusions, because she believed she knew what was real, and did not experience what he did. With this new understanding of the extent of knowledge and absolute truth, what happens when we use the same method of comparison to determine if any experience is reality or illusion?

As simply 'being' is absolute truth, all experiences would be compared to it. And as simply 'being' is without experience, all experiences become illusions to this absolute truth ... including the experience of knowing 'I AM'. Experience is the veil which surrounds the absolute truth of simply 'being'.

Now the reader may be asking themselves questions such as “If there is only one absolute truth and nothing else can be known, what is the point of all this? Why is Obbe blathering on and on to those he thinks of as illusions? Hell, if absolute truth is simply 'being' and experience is illusory to that truth, then why am I experiencing such a complex illusion in the first place?”

Because simply 'being' is also all. It is not only 'oneness' but also 'allness' ... or rather, the two mean the same thing. To experience is purpose of existence, and the experience of this existence is just one minuscule cog along the infinite wheel of all.

You experience. Without experience, existence would begin and end at simply 'being', with only awareness of nothing. So we experience out experiences, but often fail to see the oneness we share with such experiences. We make assumptions that what we experience is entirely separate from ourselves, our 'being'. But I believe what we experience are different perspectives of all, for this 'being' to have.

Under the assumption that separate things exist, one could also assume (using what is known to be true) that if these things were to have their own perspectives, all that they too could truly know is the same as what you do. Assuming that another person exists, although that cannot be known, it is logical that the absolute truth would be the same to them. That all they could possibly know to be true, is 'I AM'. They would not be able to know you exist, anymore then you know they do. Thats an assumption, an illusion to the absolute truth.

But you can imagine their perspective of reality, even if their existence is only an illusion to the absolute truth. How are you and the other 'one'? Because the absolute truth of your perspectives would be the same. Beneath all illusions, they are as you are; simply being. All they are is another perspective for this 'being' to have, just as you are (as in your ego). Things we define as being 'unaware', what is their ... "perspective"? Awareness of nothing, simply being.

All things you can imagine or assume to exist would share this 'being'. From each of their own perspectives, all is illusion compared with what is known. Each of these perspectives, in the heat of truth, boil down to simply being. As I have said before, all comes forth from and reverts back to the absolute truth. This is the allness that is simply 'being'. This is the oneness that is simply 'being'. This is God.

When assuming experiences to be true our oneness becomes allness. Assuming your body to be real, are you actually and individual, or a collection of individual cells? Are they actually individuals, or are they created by smaller things? Even planck length can be divided into 'half a planck', 'quarter planck' and so on. We are the infinite, and we collectively create the infinite as well ... one human is a very small part of all possible perspectives of this world-line, of all possible perspectives of all possible world-lines ... of all ad infinitum.

God is the absolute truth, the allness and oneness that is simply 'being'. Ultimately there are no 'illusions' and there is no 'truth' ... simply, all is all.