What is God?

[Sriram]

Hi Eveyone,

What is God?  Maybe I have posted this before but never mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ0e8JRu_9U

Hope you like it.

Cheers,

Sriram

[Roses]

The idea of god/gods is created by humans, there being no verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Shaker]

Without a referent to measure against, absolutely anything you like.

[Nearly Sane]

Good delivery as is this



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj6XAvuRn4Q

[Roses]

Good delivery as is this



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj6XAvuRn4Q

BRILLIANT that sums god up so well.

[Sriram]

For those who are eager to merely blurt out their fondly held opinions but don't want to listen to what has been posted...here is a simple summary.

Sadhguru says in the video that, our images of God are man made and depend on our own identity. The actual source of creation cannot be known and we can only dissolve in it. 

[Maeght]

For those who are eager to merely blurt out their fondly held opinions but don't want to listen to what has been posted...here is a simple summary.

Sadhguru says in the video that, our images of God are man made and depend on our own identity. The actual source of creation cannot be known and we can only dissolve in it.

Was agreeing until the phrase 'we can only dissolve in it'. What does that mean?

[Sriram]

In a simple sense, it means that we can only experience it. In a more involved sense it means that we eventually merge with the Absolute Consciousness and lose our individual identity. Like rivers flowing into the ocean.   

[Roses]

In a simple sense, it means that we can only experience it. In a more involved sense it means that we eventually merge with the Absolute Consciousness and lose our individual identity. Like rivers flowing into the ocean.

How awful, no thanks.

[Maeght]

In a simple sense, it means that we can only experience it. In a more involved sense it means that we eventually merge with the Absolute Consciousness and lose our individual identity. Like rivers flowing into the ocean.

Ah, right, thanks. Would agree with the first bit. Second bit, well, still a vague meaning to me as no idea what Absolute Consciousness means but think it will always be how it is in these types of discussions.

[ekim]

Ah, right, thanks. Would agree with the first bit. Second bit, well, still a vague meaning to me as no idea what Absolute Consciousness means but think it will always be how it is in these types of discussions.

Yes, I think you are right.  Unless there is some degree of interest in 'Eastern' schools of thought then the discussion is likely to degenerate into slick dismissive remarks.  'Absolute Consciousness' probably refers to the Sanskrit word 'Satchitananda' which is really three words meaning 'Being, consciousness and bliss or joy'.  It is absolute in the sense that it is said to permeate all.  You cannot have and 'idea' of it as that would just be a mental idea which is why knowing it means to consciously merge with it.  There are a variety of yogas which are methods to lead to that 'state'.  I believe there are mystics associated with some 'Western' religions who see union with God as a merging rather than sustaining individuality.  It is experiential rather than philosophical and so doesn't lend itself to discussion too well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I think you are right.  Unless there is some degree of interest in 'Eastern' schools of thought then the discussion is likely to degenerate into slick dismissive remarks.  'Absolute Consciousness' probably refers to the Sanskrit word 'Satchitananda' which is really three words meaning 'Being, consciousness and bliss or joy'. 

It struck me as being equivalent of ''Ecstasy''.

[Sriram]

Actually, there are many natural states of consciousness. The innermost ones produce a feeling of bliss and fulfillment. One of the aims of spirituality is to consciously 'wade' through the various levels of consciousness and seek the inner most level. This takes a lifetime of rigorous training and guided yogic practice, besides many other lifestyle restrictions. 

In this way people manage to discipline their outer mental states slowly over time and then work their way inwards to deeper levels of consciousness. Once this is achieved it is a more or less permanent state and is believed to be a form of liberation from the cycle of life and death.

However, it is possible that through certain drugs,  the outer mental states can be temporarily removed so that the person can feel certain blissful states of mind. The mind cannot be controlled through such methods and it results in the outer mental states rebounding back with great force. This results in messing around with the mind and brain, in addictions and severe damage to mental processes. 

[ekim]

It struck me as being equivalent of ''Ecstasy''.

Quite possibly.  The Greek origin of the word meant standing outside oneself which suggests a state of being beyond the physical and mental.  I seem to remember that the word 'paradise' had a Greek origin paradeisos which meant beyond form.  The Jesus method, perhaps badly translated as 'repent', was metanoia - beyond mind.

[Sriram]

I thought TPFK was referring to the drug 'Ecstasy'....which is why I mentioned it in my earlier post.  Maybe I am wrong.

[ippy]

In a simple sense, it means that we can only experience it. In a more involved sense it means that we eventually merge with the Absolute Consciousness and lose our individual identity. Like rivers flowing into the ocean.

I'd give you a first in bollocksology Sriram, top flight honours, mind you on this particular subject I suppose you can invent anything you like state it in writing with enough of the equivalent of an authoritative voice, and then hay presto instant religion, or religious belief dependent on however you prefer to present your ideas on this subject. 

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

I'd give you a first in bollocksology Sriram, top flight honours, mind you on this particular subject I suppose you can invent anything you like state it in writing with enough of the equivalent of an authoritative voice, and then hay presto instant religion, or religious belief dependent on however you prefer to present your ideas on this subject. 

Regards ippy

Just so!

[ippy]

Just so!

 Cheers Susan, I take it although it looks to me you're going along with my post I hope you're not writing off the blue Elephant headed male figure that hangs around with a flying rat or 'Star Trek'?

Kind regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought TPFK was referring to the drug 'Ecstasy'....which is why I mentioned it in my earlier post.  Maybe I am wrong.

No I was referring to the state of ecstacy as described by Ekim.


Unfortunately some great greek based words have had there original meanings usurped by modern version and it is a tactic of antitheists on this forum to use modern and colloquial definitions and disallow traditional definitions.


The obvious example is intelligent creator which people are quite willing to accept in the context of some evolved being in another notional universe but disallow the idea of intelligent creation in religious thought.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The idea of god/gods is created by humans, there being no verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.

A positive claim, therefore:

1. What would you consider as verifiable evidence

2. Where is your verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis that The idea of god/gods is created by humans?

[jeremyp]

1. What would you consider as verifiable evidence

If the Conquistadors visiting central America had found a society that worshipped the Christian god, that might be evidence. Or, to bring it up to date, if aliens landed and it turned out they were Christians.

If there is a god or gods and it/they manifested to humans, surely all gods would be fairly similar.

2. Where is your verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis that The idea of god/gods is created by humans?

Well the fact that there are so many different gods all of whom seem to reflect the image of their worshippers is pretty good evidence. They can't all be real and if they are not, who invented them if not humans?

[Samuel]

Yes, I think you are right.  Unless there is some degree of interest in 'Eastern' schools of thought then the discussion is likely to degenerate into slick dismissive remarks.  'Absolute Consciousness' probably refers to the Sanskrit word 'Satchitananda' which is really three words meaning 'Being, consciousness and bliss or joy'.  It is absolute in the sense that it is said to permeate all.  You cannot have and 'idea' of it as that would just be a mental idea which is why knowing it means to consciously merge with it.  There are a variety of yogas which are methods to lead to that 'state'.  I believe there are mystics associated with some 'Western' religions who see union with God as a merging rather than sustaining individuality.  It is experiential rather than philosophical and so doesn't lend itself to discussion too well.

Oh, I dunno. What about Spinoza or Berkley? Lots of ideas in there about existence being defined entirely by consciousness and experience and a one-ness with an original creator force or being (a Christian God according to them of course)

[Maeght]

A positive claim, therefore:

1. What would you consider as verifiable evidence

2. Where is your verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis that The idea of god/gods is created by humans?

It does say 'the idea of Gods' not 'Gods' so since humans have ideas isn't this a valid statement? Just a thought (idea?).

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

It does say 'the idea of Gods' not 'Gods' so since humans have ideas isn't this a valid statement? Just a thought (idea?).

I think that in the sense you mean it, the idea of Gods and God(s) are not mutually exclusive.

I think though that in the sense LittleRoses means it, the idea of Gods is a deduction from her oft-repeated statement that there is no (verifiable) evidence to support the existence of God.

[Gordon]

I think that in the sense you mean it, the idea of Gods and God(s) are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are: ideas of hobbits and hobbits are mutually exclusive - yes?

I think though that in the sense LittleRoses means it, the idea of Gods is a deduction from her oft-repeated statement that there is no (verifiable) evidence to support the existence of God.

She's mentions 'the idea of Gods': do you dispute that ideas about anything arise only from the brains of people? While we're at it do you have any verifiable evidence to the support the existence of Gods?