So does this restrict the kinds of propositions about God that one can put forth? — uncanni

Not as far as I'm concerned, but if we go too far out from the 'mainstream', if there is one, that won't take us in the direction of a general description of God that we could agree on. Aside from that, go for it! :up:

eternal First and Fundamental Being, with a creative Mind, — PoeticUniverse

What if the Mind isn't a part, but the totality of the First and Fundamental Being?

if we ever come to the conclusion that there is a being or consciousness that created existence, — Tzeentch

Can the being or consciousness itself be part of the creation, in no way extraneous to it?

What if the Mind isn't a part, but the totality of the First and Fundamental Being? — uncanni

Then we are all made of God-stuff, as the atman in the Brahman.

Or, without God's Mind, we are all made of the base existence.

All that 'is' already is, complete.

Then we are all made of God-stuff, as the atman in the Brahman.

Or, without God's Mind, we are all made of the base existence.

All that 'is' already is, complete. — PoeticUniverse

I assumed that Everything was God; I thought we came to that conclusion--at least, I had.

What is base about existence? If God is existence, then... I suppose "base" is as good an adjective as any--except, is existence the foundation, or has existence, er, existed for eternity?

I think language inevitably does us a disservice with these issues.

I thought consensus, or something close, was the idea too. I called it what I called it because that's what I was looking for, if it was/is there to be found?
— Pattern-chaser

So does this restrict the kinds of propositions about God that one can put forth? I thought I was getting close to consensus with at least some folks, while others were never seeking consensus. — uncanni

As I said before - these questions can only be meaningfully discussed within ‘communities of discourse’. In the mainstream Christian community, the notion of ‘God being all’ or ‘all being God’ is heresy or worse. There’s no prospect of changing that.

Ideas like ‘ātman and Brahman’ were up until recently confined to the Hindu domain of discourse. However influential Hindu public intellectuals became highly influential in the Anglosphere in the early 20th century, later picked up and amplified by New Age books and other cultural currents. If you take the time to study the actual teachings they do make philosophical sense, but in many cases, bit and pieces of ideas get picked up and sloganised, which we’re seeing here. And there’s nothing intrinsically the matter with that, as it’s part of the means by which such ideas are assimilated into culture.

I assumed that Everything was God; I thought we came to that conclusion--at least, I had. — uncanni

Yes, since what 'is', as ever, is all there is, and so, as @rlcauler says better, it has to transmute into forms of itself, heresy or not, and so this is what logically has to be, as the new common ground of 'God' or 'IS'.

A nun wonders, about a philosopher of old,

“I have read in your flowing ancient tome
That a man’s mind is God in human form
Though it does admit this idea is rough
And might not with normal logic conform.
 
“So, like you and me, mind and God unite
Just as the sun is connected to light.

“What’s here now has to be as that long before,
Not new out of the blue, for there is no more;
So we and all are akin to what is,
Ne’er less—we're united beyond the door.”

"Oh, thou, that olden wise man, come here fast,
For you're alive in that keep of the past."

The Ancient soon arrives, full of energy.
‘Hail to the All, philosophical clergy.
I’ve read your poems’ presents to the forum.
I a-rose from death, from fumes down the stems.’

The young nun now caught in the light that shined,
Stilled her racing heart and then searched her mind
For questions fit for resurrected Guides
To ask the Apparition by her side.
 
She hoped that in some miraculous ways
Her monk was included in the man's gaze
But fearing that she might be all alone
She would address the man in trembling tone.

“I’m seeing,” said her monk, “his spectral form.
He’s moving, by Something, out of his norm.
We’ve stirred him from the underground city—
Of unity in multiplicity.”
 
"Great spirit, I have lately read your words
And have some questions you might find absurd
My abiding wish is to understand
And beg your patience with my learning bland."

The spirit then turned as the world stood hushed,
Regarded the nun with her young face flushed,
‘Your quest and your love are both holy pure
And deserve answers you are seeking for.
 
‘All must at last to itself return One,
When each age of long existence is done.
Matter exists by reconstitution
And existence works by revolution.
 
‘The One splits and breaks to diversity,
So becoming the All that you can see.
Humanity, twixt their birth and their death,
Is the turning point of His Holy Breath.
 
‘All matter is chains of numbers composed,
Built into each entity’s science code.
That’s how Life keeps order within the change,
As One to All simply builds and erodes.
 
‘This is the message so plain and so clear
That you two this day are given to hear.'

…

I find the word 'Elohim' (translated "GOD") to be comprised of three components:

el - towardness
o - conduit
him - sea (as in: expanse)

which I find are the image (male: phallus who bestows) and likeness (female: ovum which receives) qualities that give rise to Adam and Eve made in the image and likeness of Elohim, and the conduit through which they operate and interact with one another, which fundamentally reduces into the reproductive organ. Thus "GOD" I would define as:

the activity of the reciprocation of bestowal and reception in perpetuity

and this is how knowledge of good and evil is attained.

Elohim — A Gnostic Agnostic

And also the children of God (El).

and this is how knowledge of good and evil is attained. — A Gnostic Agnostic

That seems like a jump, but I'll be darned, for all along I thought "good and evil" became of "God and Devil", or vice versa, rather than of reproductive organs.

Anagramming is the REAL Key to All

Hidden in the word ‘Evolution’ which as an anagram…
is the meaning
Outlive On
which means literally metaphorically to outlive the others,
in order to survive and live on, and
Vile No Out
Vile On Out
which symbolically means that we can go either way, vile or not, and
Live On Out
which the wise old ancients took to mean to live well and look alive, and
Evil No Out
Evil On Out
which the symbolic Bible reveals to have a mixture of good and ‘bad’ is best, and
Novel I Out
which is the story of evolution read to us by the fossils, and
Ovule In To
Love In Out
which means for man and woman to know each other
in the Biblical way to procreate and recreate, and, finally
Love I Unto
which proves beyond all doubt that
evolution = love.

In total, then, all the above really proves the great insight that…
letters can be rearranged.

Yes, that sounds quite right. Your poem expresses it beautifully.

And yet: Whence evil? Is it uniquely human creation? Is it somehow separate from "God," and if not, how is it a part of the whole? Should one attempt to examine evil without anthropomorphizing it? Why would it be separate? It would have to be a part of the whole.

It's when I contemplate evil, which I consider entirely human-made, that I'm left asking more and more questions. I never consider this issue from the standpoint of original sin or any other kind of origin of evil; I'm personally not concerned with origin in this case.

I'd be interested to know others' thoughts on the nature of evil.

Whence evil? — uncanni

Evil and all the kinds of ugliness of humans needs to be of the All/'God', for how could there be something independent and separate? Dismay follows. There are no longer many gods; so, we can't stick the evil onto just a few of them, as was done in the poly past.

There is no point talking about God. Anything we could possibly come up with would be pure speculation. I personally never experienced God (or, for that matter, any other god, gOd or goD). He (or she) never talked to me and never directly manifested its existence to me in any other way. There are some who say: how else would the world and the whole universe come about? Sure, simple-minded people crave to find a simple explanation for the unexplicable. But humans cannot even solve chess. Just think about it. Do you think understanding how the world came about is easier than solving chess? To put it bluntly, people, even the wisest of them all, are morons. Not at all mentally equipped to deal with very complex problems. In any case, we should only rely on facts. And it's a fact that we don't know how the universe came into being. Long ago, when priests were the educated ones, they took advantage of simpletons (the hoi polloi) by claiming to be in contact with God, their proof being the ability to predict
eclipse of the sun. When the eclipse came exactly when predicted, the simpletons had hard time reaching any other conclusion rather than the one the priests wanted - i. e. that they indeed are in contact with God. (if you don't bring me gold, the God will punish you!) Who are priests anyway to claim any sort of expertise when it comes to God? Well, if you believe anyone without exercising critical thinking - you're in for trouble. There's a whole lot of money to be made on the naive masses. God is just one of the tricks. Some people are even clueless enough to kill in the name of God and not seem to be aware that they're violating a major commandment. To sum it up: we just invented God that is like us: emotional, vengeful etc. , just because our limited imagination couldn't do better than that. Frankly, I think it's pitiful. I think we should focus on practical matters and things that we are able to grasp. And accept, that some things remain unexplicable. At least for now.

To sum it up: we just invented God that is like us: emotional, vengeful etc. , just because our limited imagination couldn't do better than that. Frankly, I think it's pitiful. — enqramot

We suspect as much, but this thread's OP ignores that kind of literal, Biblical 'God', since it is disproved by contradictions and science.

I think we should focus on practical matters and things that we are able to grasp. And accept, that some things remain unexplicable. At least for now. — enqramot

Still, it gets one to thinking about alternatives and what can and cannot coincide, philosophically, beyond the Person-Hood Mind aspect that gets abandoned, such as deriving Existence to be here all at once, as ever/eternal, and what that would further imply, as I've hinted earlier, such as it having to be an everything of no information content, as not anything in particular, for it seems to have no inputs of cause that can go into it, due to its no beginning, and so the effects would be as random.

It's when I contemplate evil, which I consider entirely human-made, that I'm left asking more and more questions. I never consider this issue from the standpoint of original sin or any other kind of origin of evil; I'm personally not concerned with origin in this case. — uncanni

Original Sin doesn't work out so well, anyway, as a blame, for 'God' would be fully responsible for creating a human nature that has His intended capabilities in it, for evil, good, and whatnot.

So, evil would have to be some necessity for us from 'God'/All. The 'freedom' given to humans would then have to be totally free of consequences from Him.

The task of describing God requires a describer who has seen/perceived God.

Conventional descriptions depend on our physical senses and this is out of the question since God is a non-physical being whatever that means.

If we God can be perceived non-physically then there would a problem because such experiences would be private and impossible to convey to another except in approximations so vague as to be useless.

Also I think a description forms the basis of a definition. A description that is unique, as is required here, would be a definition wouldn't it?

Define God, no
Describe, ergo, so
here full the description
but that's just the definition
if you describe fine
that's just what we do when we define

What's the difference between a description of God and God?

We suspect as much, but this thread's OP ignores that kind of literal, Biblical 'God', since it is disproved by contradictions and science. — PoeticUniverse

That's ok. But why even use the word "God"? Words should mean something, have some definition, whereas "God" is just a placeholder. What if we were created by some entity itself created by another entity that was created by yet another entity. Giving "God" any attributes is completely mad IMO. Possibly the only way to find out about the nature of the Universe is through direct experience (idk, meditation? drugs? lucid dreaming?) Scientific exploration for as long as it takes before we destroy our world and put a self-inflicted end to all our ill-conceived efforts.

Still, it gets one to thinking about alternatives and what can and cannot coincide, philosophically, beyond the Person-Hood Mind aspect that gets abandoned, such as deriving Existence to be here all at once, as ever/eternal, and what that would further imply, as I've hinted earlier, such as it having to be an everything of no information content, as not anything in particular, for it seems to have no inputs of cause that can go into it, due to its no beginning, and so the effects would be as random. — PoeticUniverse

Not sure what you mean there :)

This has been a fascinating discussion. God as a concept serves many purposes, as enumerated above by various members-- to control, to manipulate, to explain the unexplainable, to comfort, to delude, and to justify a lot of human endeavors throughout history.

The concepts employed by the majority of people I've ever discussed it with turn me off completely, but I think I understand why people believe the way they do: it's too terrifying not to have what Unamuno referred to as fairy tales to comfort them.

Not sure what you mean there — enqramot

It's 'merely' a summary of the derivation of the ultimate Theory of Everything, which would conclude with Totality/Existence being causeless. Yes, it's simple and almost boring, as not what was expected, but still the answer to the most often asked question.

Hidden in the word ‘Evolution’ which as an anagram…
is the meaning
Outlive On
which means literally metaphorically to outlive the others,
in order to survive and live on, and
Vile No Out
Vile On Out
which symbolically means that we can go either way, vile or not, and
Live On Out
which the wise old ancients took to mean to live well and look alive, and
Evil No Out
Evil On Out
which the symbolic Bible reveals to have a mixture of good and ‘bad’ is best, and
Novel I Out
which is the story of evolution read to us by the fossils, and
Ovule In To
Love In Out
which means for man and woman to know each other
in the Biblical way to procreate and recreate, and, finally
Love I Unto
which proves beyond all doubt that
evolution = love. — PoeticUniverse

Nicely done :smile:

Did you come up with that on the spot, or have you used it before? How long did it take to originate? It would have taken me hours, but I get the sense you can just spit that out off the top of your head?

How long did it take to originate? — ZhouBoTong

It was fast, for there are sites on the internet for making anagrams.

It was fast, for there are sites on the internet for making anagrams. — PoeticUniverse

Well, I am still impressed. You still had to make up all that BS for the anagrams to make your point..

Could god be evil? Does god have free will? Does he/she/it have to be a thinking being or will a feeling or an understanding suffice? The question you're asking is huge. People have literally written books on who/what god is, they still do all the time. I don't think it is realistic to find a one size fits all description it's just more of a personal answer thing.

The question you're asking is huge. People have literally written books on who/what god is, they still do all the time. I don't think it is realistic to find a one size fits all description it's just more of a personal answer thing. — Sunnyside

I can't disagree. The aim of this topic is laudable, I think, but quite possibly unattainable, as you suggest. :smile:

Laudable it certainly is, this is one of the most interesting discussions I have ever seen here or elsewhere.

Laudable it certainly is, this is one of the most interesting discussions I have ever seen here or elsewhere. — Sunnyside

The reasoning spurred by investigations into 'God' even gives us the outline of The Theory of Everything:

TOE Bound

The philosophical strides leap and bound,
For the causelessness of All must be found,
Along with the unfree will that dooms a Mind;
It’s staggering: All goes round and round!

Actually the somewhat acceptable definition would be as the Creator of the Universe. This assumes that existence of the universe begs a maker. This is of course just a matter of belief, it is not proven. On the other hands some might entertain a definition of God as the source of Good things in the universe like Love, beauty, kindness, empathy, etc.. The second definition need not be confused with the first, for a belief in ONE maker of the universe who has absolute dominion on it, might raise ethical points against him, like allowing evil to happen at such a great scale that is not explainable on the basis of testing, or any reasonable basis really. The second God might not have that dominion but it is more beautiful in the sense it only give rise to what is good, so there are no ethical points against him, but he looks weak in comparison with the first God. I think the nature of God and the relation of its dominion to what's happening in the universe is almost impossible question to solve, that we might as well be agnostic about it. The real point is to seek HOPE in existence being something more than just an emotionless stream of stuff. It confers more value to existence. However on the other side, we notice that the known revelations are doing very bad job in drawing an image about that God. Unfortunately the bible depicts God ordering some of his prophets to kill thousands of people including children, and their animals, burn whole cities, but take their GOLD to the treasury of God? Others picture God as sending you to an EVERLASTING TORTURE for not believing that an apparently human being called Jesus who lived some couple of thousand years ago is in reality God himself impersonated in a human form? What a sin? Other religions would also picture God sending the MAJORITY of people he created to an EVERLASTING burning in fire, for not believing in a revelation made by Angles for which we have no evidence whatsoever of them being really angles coming from him? Clearly those religions are just human ways of trying to solve the religious philosophical questions about existence, they failed, they need to be improved. That doesn't mean that there is no possible source of Goodness in this universe which is a rational being, it only means that we failed to approach him in the right way. It doesn't mean he is not helping us, however we cannot prove that he did. On the other hand It would be a mystery to explain his apparent silence?

I've seen some of your poetry around the site. Do you find your stuff on the internet or just make it up as you go?

Do you find your stuff on the internet — Sunnyside

No; it's mine.

or just make it up as you go? — Sunnyside

Only sometimes.

Happy to see that you're not from the dark side.

Happy to see that you're not from the dark side. — PoeticUniverse

I find your lack of faith disturbing. You don't know the power of the Dark Side. :smile:

@Sunnyside Poeticuniverse is certainly talented...unfortunately I just have a general aversion to poetry. But even I can admit that he adds something to the forum...hopefully people like you can enjoy it.