What is your concept of God?

[blazeofglory]

I do not believe God as something different from us, and hold the belief that there is no strand of difference between God and man. I do not believe that God is just a creator and we are his creations. There is no him and us. No duality of curse. No inner and outer barriers between God and man.
Where is God? In heaven? Inside us? I do not believe there is anything external or internal to God. God is everything. In the Gita it is written that God is everywhere and in everything and everything is God. How can anything other than God here. There is no otherness, innerness, externality, and duality.
I do not think God is different to sinners and saints, and all are equally treated by God. No matter you pray or do not, God does not get angry with you, and of course God never can be angry with you. People keep on praying God thinking that praise of God will please God but it does not affect God at all, for these worldly attributes do not make any difference to God at all.
I do not look at God from the points of view of Christians, Hindus, Muslims or mythologies or any accounts given in sacred texts. These are hazed or screened points of view. God is not and beyond all these attributes. We all are in this vast cosmos is the manifestation of God and nothing else, and ever saints and sinners included

[selkies]

God is one of those words that has been used to describe too many things. If I met someone who claimed to be God I wouldn't be able to prove him wrong.

So is God separate? Yes. Is he in all of us? Yes. Is he...? Yes, according to someone.

What I think doesn't matter, only what `is` matters.

That is my concept of God

[NikolaiI]

God is with form and without form. God is the divine consciousness. All forms are but forms of consciousness, and understood more deeply, all forms are but forms of God. The tree, the computer, the leaf, and again a blanket, all are God, because the divine consciousness is within every form, because every form comes from the same source - God.

One may come to God through any religious path. If one is sincere, then one will attain God, for it is work and worship in devotion to God which remove the veil of ignorance. We must strive to reach God. If we remain idle we will never achieve any vision of the divine.

We must always serve something. It is our eternal nature to render service. If we are not serving God, then we are serving something else. It is true that God is not different from the creation, as the cause is not different from the effect, because the effect contains the cause within it; and yet the creation is covered over. God is within the creation implicitly, or involved.

God is within all of nature, all of the material energy. Within humans, animals, and plants, and stars, and metal and rocks. But within metal and rocks, God is covered very much. Matter is the most gross form of God. Plants are a slightly more subtle form of consciousness. Plants are also forms of God, but they are only slightly more evolved than matter, they are still in deep ignorance. Then you have animals which are conscious of much more than plants. And humans are another level above animals in what we are conscious of. But humans are still conditioned. So all are forms of light, consciousness, truth, or God. But we do not see God, and we doubt God. Atheism is popular. Vision of God is only attained by great effort. God is the divine, the unlimited Over-Soul, and the Truth-consciousness. As God is unlimited, God has unlimited names. One can realize God through meditation, through japa, etc. and then begin to see God as the background behind the creation.

Anyway, the divine is within everything, and never separate from anything. As we come from the Infinite, our nature is also divine. We cannot have a different nature than what our source is. Our source is the infinite, or sac-cid-ananda-vigraha, and we also have a sac-cid-ananda body. We seek for the divine, or for truth, which is not different from the divine. But our searches are not subtle enough. God, truth, is nowhere external to us, but is within. No seeking is necessary once we realize we are one with God.

So I agree with you. In one sense, God is separate from us. And in another, God is not. God must be approached by devotion and faith. Meditation on God and work and worship give us strength, spiritual intelligence and vision - because God is the Supreme Pure, we are purified by contact therewith. But when one sees and knows God truly and fully, then all distinctions fall, all boundaries are realized. Where God ends, there we begin, and where we end, there God begins. In other words - everything beyond "us," is God, in that God is everything, because God controls everything which happens to us. But then it is realized, God is everything without, and also God is us, and we are God. The thing is, how can you be separate from your source? Exactly, how can man be separate from God? The thing is, realize this - God is your source. Then put the emphasize on your.

But as you say as well, God is beyond all of our words, thoughts, concepts, ideas, images, and imagined attributes. God is beyond all distinction and duality. God is beyond all art, and all knowledge. And yet, it is only through conscious effort that superconscious illumination is achieved. Though God is beyond our thoughts, yet we must think - and so we should think of God. God is beyond our actions, and yet we must act - so we act for God. By thinking of God, the husband of the Goddess of Fortune... we will eventually be perfect, and we will know infinite peace and bliss.

This seems like a high claim. It is true, though, yet one must experience it oneself. I don't have any attachment in this regard. But yet, the only truth is God. As it is said, God alone is real, while all else is unreal. God is for anyone and everyone, and attainable by everyone. Everyone comes from the same Over-Soul, which is the absolute ground of reality. So the best course possible is to render service toward God.

[blazeofglory]

God must be realized effortlessly, thoughtlessly. As all of us Gods or God’s manifestations, we are not different from God and there is no interior or exteriors and what we see as internal or external is sheer illusion and nothing else. God is not a thing to respond to conditionality, situations. God is over and above else. God realization must be through a natural course or something that can be known, and describing the Way to God is not possible as it is beyond words, thoughts and efforts. Our cerebrum cannot map God’s domain nor can our senses realize it. It is subtler than thoughts and deeper than the sky. All entities, universes, galaxies are sheer illusions and limited by time and space, yet God dwells in the domain, not a physical nor a metaphysical but something beyond that. I normally cannot believe God, speaking with a great amount of earnestness and solemnity in point of fact. Once you know this truth you will have humility and fluidity in nature. You will merge into eternity. Maybe Nirvana is oftentimes said as a state of nothingness and the Buddha has realized it and he never admitted to a physical entity of God or describable state of God. God in the Vedas, the supposedly oldest texts is described by a Sanskrit word Gunatit or beyond attributes.

Once you realize God’ nature sinners and saints, angels and demons, inns and outs, distances or all dimensions will disappear.

[DanielBenoit]

God must be realized effortlessly, thoughtlessly. As all of us Gods or God’s manifestations, we are not different from God and there is no interior or exteriors and what we see as internal or external is sheer illusion and nothing else. God is not a thing to respond to conditionality, situations. God is over and above else. God realization must be through a natural course or something that can be known, and describing the Way to God is not possible as it is beyond words, thoughts and efforts. Our cerebrum cannot map God’s domain nor can our senses realize it. It is subtler than thoughts and deeper than the sky. All entities, universes, galaxies are sheer illusions and limited by time and space, yet God dwells in the domain, not a physical nor a metaphysical but something beyond that. I normally cannot believe God, speaking with a great amount of earnestness and solemnity in point of fact. Once you know this truth you will have humility and fluidity in nature. You will merge into eternity. Maybe Nirvana is oftentimes said as a state of nothingness and the Buddha has realized it and he never admitted to a physical entity of God or describable state of God. God in the Vedas, the supposedly oldest texts is described by a Sanskrit word Gunatit or beyond attributes.

Once you realize God’ nature sinners and saints, angels and demons, inns and outs, distances or all dimensions will disappear.

Completely agree, I have no idea what God is or isn't, but I do know that I've felt Him/Her/It in the thoughtlessness of meditation.

Dostoyevsky certainly has something brilliant to say on this matter:

"The essence of the religious feeling does not come under any sort of reason or atheism, and has nothing to do with any crimes or misdemeanors."

From "The Idiot"

[mal4mac]

Completely agree, I have no idea what God is or isn't, but I do know that I've felt Him/Her/It in the thoughtlessness of meditation.

How, then, do you know that God is a Him/Her/It? These are distinctions which require thought. Even the doubting conclusion "it might be a him or an it" is a thoughtful conclusion.

[hoope]

How, then, do you know that God is a Him/Her/It? These are distinctions which require thought. Even the doubting conclusion "it might be a him or an it" is a thoughtful conclusion.

God described himself as Him in the Holy Quran and this Holy book as been saved from any changes .
Below are verses from the Holy Quran .

and you can read it the translation from this site

http://www.jannah.org/qurantrans/


255 God! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).


I do not think God is different to sinners and saints, and all are equally treated by God. No matter you pray or do not, God does not get angry with you, and of course God never can be angry with you. People keep on praying God thinking that praise of God will please God but it does not affect God at all, for these worldly attributes do not make any difference to God at all

Blaze God is beyond all this assumptions ..

And in the holy quran it says that God merciful .., He gives chances for people and at the same time He gets angry & punishes them for those who deserve.

[rimbaud]

Well, I'm with Dostoevsky on this one

I do not exclude that God may exists but I refuse to belive in him becouse if by any chance there is God, he is evil
why do people suffer- by the bible to pay for their sins so that they can be saved on the other side, so that one day harmony will take over, what I do not understand is: why do children suffer? they don't have sins, so? They suffer to pay the collective sin, they suffer for their fathers.
well if the harmony of the world is based on the suffering of innocent victims I don't want to be a part of it. I refuse that kind of God. He is evil and hypocritical. It would be better of I knew that God does not exists but since I can not be sure I just refuse to believe in him.

And I'm with Fight Club on this one:
We are God's unwanted children, so be it! We don't need him.

[soundofmusic]

To All,
Does evil exist to balance good; does there always have to be a metaphorical snake and a tree of knowledge in Eden?

[DanielBenoit]

How, then, do you know that God is a Him/Her/It? These are distinctions which require thought. Even the doubting conclusion "it might be a him or an it" is a thoughtful conclusion.

It's not a thought out conclusion and is entirely based on faith, as Kierkigaard said, "Faith begins were thought ends." This knowingness of something is not derived from any sort of logic, it's merely a fuzzy, vauge reflection upon an experience, after its occurence.


To All,
Does evil exist to balance good; does there always have to be a metaphorical snake and a tree of knowledge in Eden?

Yeah, Nietzsche said something of the like. Without evil, we would never be able to recognize good. It's like with superheros: Who would think Spider-Man was a hero without there being crime for him to ward off?

[Judas130]

A concept of God is still but a concept.

[NikolaiI]

Well, I'm with Dostoevsky on this one

I do not exclude that God may exists but I refuse to belive in him becouse if by any chance there is God, he is evil
why do people suffer- by the bible to pay for their sins so that they can be saved on the other side, so that one day harmony will take over, what I do not understand is: why do children suffer? they don't have sins, so? They suffer to pay the collective sin, they suffer for their fathers.
well if the harmony of the world is based on the suffering of innocent victims I don't want to be a part of it. I refuse that kind of God. He is evil and hypocritical. It would be better of I knew that God does not exists but since I can not be sure I just refuse to believe in him.

And I'm with Fight Club on this one:
We are God's unwanted children, so be it! We don't need him.

Alan Watts gave a very good example to help gain some perspective on this. What is discord at one level of being is harmony at another. For example, as Watts said, there are creatures in the blood stream (of our body, as well as aniamls', etc.) which are killing each other. This goes on always, it is happening as we speak. It is discord at one level, but on another level, our level of being, it is complete harmony. The killing of those creatures in the blood stream which goes on happens in perfectly healthy, harmoniously healthy living beings, such as humans and other animals.

So what is discord on one level, the microscopic level, is harmony on another level of being, the one we are familiar with. The same thing is true with us. If, God forbid, a person, let us say an innocent, is killed while in some situation, through no sin or fault of their own; this is seen as discord, and also as evil. And your argument is that it is an absolute evil, if I do not mistake you. But again, while it is discord at this level, it may be within a greater harmony.

[rimbaud]

I just don't like the whole idea of god and religion, it seems hypocritical to me, so I refuse to believe it
I do think that there are some people that find the answer in religion. It's their source of happiness, way of being happy , for me it's not.
Some people believe in God, I believe in art

[DanielBenoit]

I just don't like the whole idea of god and religion, it seems hypocritical to me, so I refuse to believe it
I do think that there are some people that find the answer in religion. It's their source of happiness, way of being happy , for me it's not.
Some people believe in God, I believe in art

To me God is art.

I don't subscribe to any religion, but I am very religious (though not ascetic). . . . if that makes any sense.

[blazeofglory]

To me God is art.

I don't subscribe to any religion, but I am very religious (though not ascetic). . . . if that makes any sense.

I like this I don't subscribe to any religion, but I am very religious.

Of course man can still be religious without religions, and live with religious values without sticking to religions.

And religions have spurred wars, violence and disintegration in human society. Religions have distanced one man from another. We know how fundamentalist ideas are on the increase today. People clinging to a particular religious sect are engaged in indoctrinating small children to follow some particular beliefs.

Today it is beliefs or faiths that fight with one another. The world could be better without religions

[NikolaiI]

I just don't like the whole idea of god and religion, it seems hypocritical to me, so I refuse to believe it
I do think that there are some people that find the answer in religion. It's their source of happiness, way of being happy , for me it's not.
Some people believe in God, I believe in art

Well, whether one decides on God or not, there are certainly parts of existence which go beyond what can be expressed in words, and art can do this as well.

[MattG]

My God is whatever I make him/her/it out to be.

Your God is up to you.

I think man creates God, at least our interpretation of God, from whatever whole cloth there is in the imagination.

Even people who share a religion have a different interpretation of what God is to them.

[DanielBenoit]

My God is whatever I make him/her/it out to be.

Your God is up to you.

I think man creates God, at least our interpretation of God, from whatever whole cloth there is in the imagination.

Even people who share a religion have a different interpretation of what God is to them.

I agree.
To quote a conversation from one of Kieślowski's series of short films The Decalouge:

"Do you believe in God?"

"I have a God, but he is big enough only for me."

[Judas130]

There are areas of observation where fact becomes theory, and then one guess is as good as another. However, where there are forces at play that we can't yet document or whether it is the supernatural (or perhaps the two joined), to accept ineffability is in some respects also a resignation. Existence and life can almost always be broken down and analysed - this does not take away its essence or anything special from it, but the mystery is unlocked to an extent and an unlocked mystery can still be marvelled upon as a marvellous feat of nature.
There are of course those who do not observe yet are heralds of their axioms and opinions, riddled with bias perspective and refute all else. Yet is it not that mathematical fractions are true before we've learnt them to be true? So then, there are truths in reality that have their explanations and have been observed and documented by some, and not by others. Does that mean that for those who do not understand these truths, they do not exist? When people in the West believed the Sun orbited the Earth, and that the Earth was flat, was it not true that the Earth in fact orbited the Sun and that the Earth was round?
There are things that are ineffable to some, and we attempt to provide explanations for them. By all means, this is a good thing: it is independent conceptualisation. It may be limited, but at least it is a step towards a truth, than excepting that even though there is another bridge to a level of understanding, we will deny its crossing, and claim there is no bridge or that it leads to uncertainty and ruin. On this concrete conclusion is a brittle fallacy. It is through question and doubt that one finds breadcrumbs, but never a full answer, only a broader perception than the one who denies a crossing of a bridge to a higher learning, and engrosses themselves in what they think they know.
Read that how you like.
Peace.

[NikolaiI]

There are areas of observation where fact becomes theory, and then one guess is as good as another. However, where there are forces at play that we can't yet document or whether it is the supernatural (or perhaps the two joined), to accept ineffability is in some respects also a resignation. Existence and life can almost always be broken down and analysed - this does not take away its essence or anything special from it, but the mystery is unlocked to an extent and an unlocked mystery can still be marvelled upon as a marvellous feat of nature.
There are of course those who do not observe yet are heralds of their axioms and opinions, riddled with bias perspective and refute all else. Yet is it not that mathematical fractions are true before we've learnt them to be true? So then, there are truths in reality that have their explanations and have been observed and documented by some, and not by others. Does that mean that for those who do not understand these truths, they do not exist? When people in the West believed the Sun orbited the Earth, and that the Earth was flat, was it not true that the Earth in fact orbited the Sun and that the Earth was round?
There are things that are ineffable to some, and we attempt to provide explanations for them. By all means, this is a good thing: it is independent conceptualisation. It may be limited, but at least it is a step towards a truth, than excepting that even though there is another bridge to a level of understanding, we will deny its crossing, and claim there is no bridge or that it leads to uncertainty and ruin. On this concrete conclusion is a brittle fallacy. It is through question and doubt that one finds breadcrumbs, but never a full answer, only a broader perception than the one who denies a crossing of a bridge to a higher learning, and engrosses themselves in what they think they know.
Read that how you like.
Peace.

Well, we can always learn things scientifically about religious practices such as meditation, but there will always be a personal, subjective element to it which can only be experienced. And meditation is a good example, because many scientific research has been conducted on advanced practitioners of Buddhism and other religions, etc. But that scientific knowledge, while it is very unique and valuable, is still not the whole picture. Not to say that the personal experience is the whole picture either - they are each part.

[Judas130]

meditation is a good example, because many scientific research has been conducted on advanced practitioners of Buddhism and other religions, etc. But that scientific knowledge, while it is very unique and valuable, is still not the whole picture. Not to say that the personal experience is the whole picture either - they are each part.

I don't disagree, I did say that "it is through question and doubt that one finds breadcrumbs, but never a full answer, only a broader perception than the one who denies a crossing of a bridge to a higher learning, and engrosses themselves in what they think they know." By this, I mean to say, that if we limit ourselves to one viewpoint, be it just science, or be it just spiritualism, we do our understanding a disservice. If one claims something to be 'beyond words' and claims it to be entirely a feat of their God, while the other claims it is just lights and clockwork, both are burning bridges instead of crossing them. One can only arrive at concrete conclusions by challenging logic and using observation.

[laidbackperson]

My concept of God is like this:

To start with, assume God as a person. Just for argument’s sake let the gender be male. Then this God knows just everything that is there to me. He knows all thoughts that enter my head all the time. He knows my fears, my courage, my plus and minus points, my temptations, my wrong doings and right doings, my aims, ambitions, my all thoughts about all people I interact with. He does not leave me for a single moment even when I am in the middle of a deep sleep. The God also knows my physique completely. Even details of my all nails in my hands and feet, and every hair on my body, the heart pumping blood incessantly to all parts of my body, every cell of the brain that thinks wondrous and irrelevant things, and each and every atom in my body. Everything physical about me is controlled quietly by Him.

I take this God as benevolent, and my best friend. My relationship with Him is easy. He knows fully well that I am going to err every now and then. But He is not like a moralistic priest. Don’t do this, don’t do that. Now you have done this, and you have lost me for ever. He is always there to help me in His strange ways but I am supposed to work and think hard to get the things I desire. Then also, I may not get what I want and have to live with the idea that missed things were not meant for me. Yours is just to try your best, but acceptance of the will of God in all situations is important.

Also I think that God desires that I become a real person at my own pace – selfless, compassionate, fearless to my last breath, great humor, no trace of show off, no idiocies, no sign of ego etc. He has given us something of a free will, but God too works on me, through His myriad way, slowly but solidly, so that my level of consciousness gets higher, and I can be one with Him, some day in some life.

Now let us go to another level.
The way God is with me, so exactly He is with all human beings on this earth simultaneously- with His abilities not diminishing a slightest bit in this multi-tasking. And not only human beings, He has a complete control and complete knowledge about everything that is there in our world. Not only on good things but even in the rotting things like, on each germ on the rotting human excreta of a nomad living in jungles. Going beyond earth, we extend this power and knowledge of God to the entire Universe, He is the Master that controls everything and knows everything. He encompasses everything that is there.

Thinking this way, everything that is there, is God’s and hence we also are parts of God. Besides being all pervading, all powerful and all knowledgeable, I also associate God with eternal, indestructible and purest love.

Taking God as all powerful and all knowledgeable, it is easy for me to assume that God is the greatest scientist of all times, greater beyond our imagination. The negatively charged electrons circling all the time around a positive nucleus and at the same time positive protons huddled together inside the nucleus and not repelling each other, are His doing. So are the brain, kidneys, heart, eyes etc of a human being or a tiny insect, with each part coolly performing its function, a function so complex that scientists who observe all this simply marvel at it. And then we have our earth, revolving around the sun due to gravity around a certain orbit that we as human being survive in it. If we would have been in a nearer planet, the temperature would have been too high for us and if we would have been a distant planet, temperature would have been too cold for us to survive. If we just try to explore what science has discovered about the nature, life and universe, we may find a reason to believe that some super power may be there after all. People will gloat about Big Bang theory and evolution theories, and these theories may be correct to little or large extent, but still underlying it I can see God’s Hand.

What about human inventions then? All human inventions are due to usage of the physical laws that were there all the time but were discovered by scientists over period of time. I believe that fundamental laws are of God’s. Oh, Atheists don’t ask me for proof? Or first remove my ignorance about Why we have a force like gravity, why positive and negative charges attract each-other and why like charges repel each-other, why a moving electron experience deflection in a magnetic field etc.

It looks like that more the science is advancing; the numbers of non-believers is also increasing. With more people believing that there is nothing like God. I don’t know if something is in God’s mind, but our species seems to be lured into believing that we are the master of the universe and there is nothing like God.

However, I think that more than owing to advances of science, the belief in God has taken a bigger beating due to number of wrong things that happen in world and go unpunished. We take God as all powerful, omnipresent and omniscient, and also as loving and just. Then why office politics, cruelty, loneliness, nepotism, corruption, diseases, hunger, bad bosses, murders, accidents, exploitation and other sufferings are present in this world.

How I fit God into all this?
Honestly, I can not, for I really don’t know what is in His mind. I like to think that if He decides to intervene, everything can be set right in a moment, but He has not intervened directly so far. But that does not prove that He is not there.

Saying that, I can put two concepts which looks logical to me and which can explain above turmoil.

First is the reincarnation concept. If reincarnation is really there, then many things fit into place. All your deeds, thoughts and words are accountable in a most justifiable way. You reap what you sow. However, it does not happen in a single lifetime but over hundreds, may be thousands of our births and deaths. When you die, you carry over something in your next birth. No, not the memory, but something of your consciousness or persona, definitely our good and bad deeds.

One point that I sometimes feel in support of this theory, is that we may often find the nature of a child very different from that of parents. The child seems to have one’s own intrinsic nature (or talent or lack of talent), unaffected by environment he grows up into. Reincarnation theory says that the new birth of a person in a family is as per her/his growth (spiritual) needs in a present life.

Another point that I put in favor of Reincarnation concept is that if it is not there, then we simply die when our time comes. If God is there, and He has given us this only one life, then how much can an average person improve upon his nature/his bad habits in a single lifetime. Really not much, I think. As a famous writer has said in his novel, ‘We can never know what to want, because living only one life we can neither compare it with our pervious lives, nor perfect it in our lives to come.’ If reincarnation is there then learning becomes an ongoing process, and this problem is not there. If God is not there, then just to be lost into nothingness for ever, it somehow does not jell to me. After the way, human beings have progressed from stone age and what all has been done in literature, fine arts and sciences, it doesn’t seem to sum up to anything. That you are alive and kicking one day and next day you are gone for ever. These words, that you still live in our memory and hearts do not seem to have any meaning from dead person’s point of view.

In addition to reincarnation concept, the second concept that may explain the wrong doings in our planet and which looks a bit logical to me is that it is all just a play being enacted by our Creator, in his wild humor. So to have spice, we also to have bad and ugly, with good and joyous. All suffering eventually passes away and it is just a point in the infinite line of time. I have also read that troubled times raises the human spirit and the human consciousness. May be this way, this concept explains the world wars, holocaust, nuclear bombing, 9/11 etc.

Two last points.
I would like to add that belief in God is a personal choice, more than any other thing.. Rather than seeing what is happening in the world, you have to first relate God with what happens to you, or to our near and dear ones or with our answered or unanswered prayers. But relationship has to be essentially between you and God alone – not your parents, brothers/sisters, spouse, lover, kids or friends. We have to take God as our most intimate friend or father or mother or lover, who knows us thread bare. At first instance, God would look dumb and totally passive to you for He works most quietly. But you have to think that He is at work, when you drive fast your car daily and reach your workplace safely, without killing anybody or getting yourself killed. Or when your toddler remained completely unhurt, while falling down from bed. I once saw an enthusiastic person on TV, whose both legs were cut from thighs down on a train accident, walking normally with artificial legs and being thankful to God. He is also very much into social service. You will find many such people in the world who have disability or who have lost their dearest ones of young age, still believing very much in God. In fact, they were believers first, stopped believing when tragedy stuck them and then again became believers with time, as they become aware of working of God. Scientists may say it is in their genes to believe.
One main reason, I believe in God is because by personal experiences I have found Him to be taking care. I think one need not be cunning nor worldly wise in the world, just be simple and straight and you can still manage to meet both ends meet if you are a good believer. There are still lots of good people in the world.

The last point is that there were numbers of great people who believed in God. People like Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer etc. They were people who worked ceaselessly and selflessly for the betterment of all. Were they sadly mistaken with regards to existence of God? I think they too must have started believing by personal experiences? Or were their personal experiences only delusional? Are there atheists out there, half as good as them? One may say that Truth need not be statistical. Yes, it is true, but then as demanded by the atheists, God too need not be as simple as digital logic (1: He is, 0: He isn’t), Then we have Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha etc, the originators of different religions who earnestly tried to preach about love, peace and brotherhood, again without any self interest. Were they all wrong or foolish or out of mind. Can there be really something behind all this world drama. Just think?

mm… or Grr..

[IceM]

Personally, I struggle with my image of God. I've meandered from Atheism to Christianity, then to Agnosticism, back to Christianity, atheism again, and then now to an undefined denomination.

I define God as all-powerful, but not : all-knowing or perfect. I frequently debate this point, but I simply cannot believe that he is all-knowing.

To me, religion glorifies a God beyond what he may or may not be. Edmond de Goncourt made a great quote that I firmly stick to: that, "If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion." Religious denominations seem to take the idea of a God and add their own descriptions to the point that religion is exxagerated. Perhaps there is a God: but why add the omnipotent, omniscient, perfect descriptions? Why can't a God be flawed? Why must he be perfect?

I think He is immortal in that he lives forever, but mortal in that he makes mistakes; immortal in that he's infinite, but mortal in that he's flawed.

However, I have been flirting with this idea that humans directly affect the nature of God. Let me explain.

I believe there is a verse in the Bible saying that, "Man is made in the likeness of God's image." Well, building on that, let's assume we put each type of individual into a group: arrogant in one spot, wealthy in another, for each type of person. Seeing as how we're all made in God's image, what if each sect composes a part of God? Meaning, if "God" for whatever reason is unforgiving in cold, maybe that's the general attitude of the overall "body." I don't know; it's hard to explain. It is an idea I have been flirting with though.

[Miss Juventus]

I beleive on God completely, and I think that everybody should does.God is there in the seventh sky to lead us..to make our luck. I dont know really what is someone's concept of creating people? who con ever create human, animals, mountains and every thing arround us? It is absolutely a super power that human will not ever have it.

[IceM]

I beleive on God completely, and I think that everybody should does.God is there in the seventh sky to lead us..to make our luck. I dont know really what is someone's concept of creating people? who con ever create human, animals, mountains and every thing arround us? It is absolutely a super power that human will not ever have it.

Then how did God come to be? And please please please please PLEASE do not say, "He just is. He's everything and nothing, and is eternal."

The biggest hypocrisy with religion is that God can be eternal and have no creator but Man does. That is, God doesn't have a creator, he justs exists, but Man HAD to come from somewhere.

Why can't Man just have existed evolutionally? Why must there be some divine Creator for Man? Better yet, why can't God have an origin? To consider God immortal but Man finite is the exact reason I despise theology: it glorifies God beyond what he may/may not be. Why can't He have a Creator? Better yet, why can't He just come to exist the same way Man has?

I've asked that question SOO many types. Please don't answer with the redundant hypocrisy all the others have.

[Miss Juventus]

First of all Im sorry because of lateness.. I dont log in everyday.

No bro, I will not say "he just is".. I just think and sure that your question is WRONG :)
Let's discuss... I will tell you why your question is wrong.. Not the answer.. because there are no answers for wrong questions.

If I answered you _for example_ that someone created God.. you will ask me: Then who created that who created God?.. and let's guess that I told you again who is that.. you will ask me also again: And who created that who created the creator of God?
And so on for NO END.

For Example, if I said for you that there is no God, just men and women, so no need to ask about GOD. You will ask: How they came? the men and the women?..Then I will tell you about Adam and Eve. Then you will ask me: Who created Adam and Eve? .. What should I said for you? God? I will not, because you will also ask me again: Who created God? Here, we are returning to the first question.

Because of that and to be comfortable.. you should believe on ORGIN, and that orgin who is before every thing in the world is GOD.

Why should you believe on orgin?
Now, I will ask: Who came first..the hen or the egg? and how did you know? and who was come first.. the female or the male ? and pleeeease tell me HOW it come first? No answers :)

You can feel God bro.. in everywhere everytime.. in your soul..in luck.. in a suddenly accident.
Do you believe on pain? Yes
Did you ever see it? No
Why do you believe on Pain? because you feel it.
So why do you believe on pain and dont believe on God?
Despite of that the feeling of pain in just when you hurt by something.. but you feel God everytime everywhere..

Tell me who create the LUCK? Why is your luck is different from mine?
Look at your face.. could our humane power make like it? Dont say please it genes from a sexual relationship.. because you will return for the first question.. Who created mom's and dad's genes? Who created grandpa's and grnadma's genes? and who created that who created all of that?

GOD IS THE ORGIN. Islam is a medicine for all the soul questions. I'm happy that i dont go through many people's spirals.

[Babbalanja]

It says a lot that the ancients used their God to explain mysteries, while modern believers use mysteries to explain their God.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

It says a lot that the ancients used their God to explain mysteries, while modern believers use mysteries to explain their God.

Regards,

Istvan

Lol, so true :lol:

God, ehhhh. I find it even more annoying when believers try to rationalize God. God is just one of those things that is just beyond our comprehension and unreachable. I'm not even saying that there is or isn't a God, the ontological question itself is a futile one.

I know I'm going against human nature when I say this but, can't we just live with some mysteries? Must we apply a system of belief to everything? Without mystery there is no wonder. We humans are the saints of unanswered questions.





No bro, I will not say "he just is".. I just think and sure that your question is WRONG :)
Let's discuss... I will tell you why your question is wrong.. Not the answer.. because there are no answers for wrong questions.

If I answered you _for example_ that someone created God.. you will ask me: Then who created that who created God?.. and let's guess that I told you again who is that.. you will ask me also again: And who created that who created the creator of God?
And so on for NO END.

For Example, if I said for you that there is no God, just men and women, so no need to ask about GOD. You will ask: How they came? the men and the women?..Then I will tell you about Adam and Eve. Then you will ask me: Who created Adam and Eve? .. What should I said for you? God? I will not, because you will also ask me again: Who created God? Here, we are returning to the first question.

Because of that and to be comfortable.. you should believe on ORGIN, and that orgin who is before every thing in the world is GOD.

Why should you believe on orgin?
Now, I will ask: Who came first..the hen or the egg? and how did you know? and who was come first.. the female or the male ? and pleeeease tell me HOW it come first? No answers :)


First, we should not base an argument or system of belief out of ignorance. Whether if it's any question. "Where did my Mountain Dew come from?" "I don't know." "Thus there must be a God."

Okay, in all seriousness now, this concept of 'orgin' is an old and original one (excuse the phonetic irony ;) ). It dates far far back and was in fact one of the prime arguments Aristotle used in theorizing that the universe was ageless.

The problem is not the infinite regress found in the chicken or the egg question, but that these word games have no basis in reality. We never percieve an orgin, we merely make connections. Things happen according to the laws of physics, but how does that imply that there's a causal orgin? Putting aside the discoveries in quantum theory. . . .

It is just common human logic to think of things in terms of orgins, but that doesn't mean that the mechanics of our minds have any basis in the mechanics of the universe.

Now let's go into Derridean discourse: Let's say that God is the origin of this structure we call the universe. God is the center and origin of the totality. He is the governing element of the structure and is above all other things, and thus has no other equilvelent. He is the center of the structure, and yet he is independent of the structure (for to be part of the structure would make him adherent to the structure, and thus not all-ruling). God is the center and yet not part of the totality, i.e. the structure. And thus the center is outside of the structure; the center is not a center, and the structure is not a structure (without any sort of center, a structure is chaotic).
(Note: We can replace the deconstructivist jargon "center" with "orgin" and it would still apply to the same thing.)

Basically the rersult is a chaotic system open to infinte play and infinite means of interpritation. Locality being the only means to make any rationalistic coherence.

In the end, the "structure" is not the world itself, but merely our traditional Western mind-set. That mind-set is given to the dogs once picked apart. We have merely been meddling in our own abstractions for the last twenty-three hundred years.



You can feel God bro.. in everywhere everytime.. in your soul..in luck.. in a suddenly accident.
Do you believe on pain? Yes
Did you ever see it? No
Why do you believe on Pain? because you feel it.
So why do you believe on pain and dont believe on God?
Despite of that the feeling of pain in just when you hurt by something.. but you feel God everytime everywhere..


That's a matter of interpretation. As a believer, you have God as the ultimate signifier. You, like everyone else, create a map of things in your head and have them all point to an orgin, merely as a matter of coherence. But in fact, these words are not all pointing to an orgin and are merely pointing to other things, signified to the signified, and so on and on, for then for there to be a final signifier would have to have it apply to a semantic choice in order for it to have any meaning.

In the end all of our infinite regresses of logic merely refer back to our words.



Tell me who create the LUCK? Why is your luck is different from mine?
Look at your face.. could our humane power make like it? Dont say please it genes from a sexual relationship.. because you will return for the first question.. Who created mom's and dad's genes? Who created grandpa's and grnadma's genes? and who created that who created all of that?


The genes question is merely a matter of biology, which I think you will find quite interesting upon studying the workings of evolution.

Many of us look at things in terms of a creation because we relate it to our everyday life. We assume that since their was a creator to a painting, that there must've been a creator to everything, which is a bit ridiculous because of the fact that the painter didn't really create anything in the first place. He merely just mixed a bunch of materials together until it came out appearing as something coherent. Creation as it is usually used as a word, could really be considered creating coherence, as oppose to creating things.

[IceM]

If I answered you _for example_ that someone created God.. you will ask me: Then who created that who created God?.. and let's guess that I told you again who is that.. you will ask me also again: And who created that who created the creator of God?
And so on for NO END.



Because of that and to be comfortable.. you should believe on ORGIN, and that orgin who is before every thing in the world is GOD.

Why should you believe on orgin?
Now, I will ask: Who came first..the hen or the egg? and how did you know? and who was come first.. the female or the male ? and pleeeease tell me HOW it come first? No answers :)

You can feel God bro.. in everywhere everytime.. in your soul..in luck.. in a suddenly accident.
Do you believe on pain? Yes
Did you ever see it? No
Why do you believe on Pain? because you feel it.
So why do you believe on pain and dont believe on God?
Despite of that the feeling of pain in just when you hurt by something.. but you feel God everytime everywhere..



So, if I'm not mistaken, you are saying the belief in God is plausible because there are no answers to my questions. In essence, because I cannot answer my questions, I just have to accept God as truth? Really?

You say that I cannot see pain, which is true; however, (to use your word) you can, in most scenarios, see the ORIGIN of the pain. If someone is on fire, can't you see the cause of their pain (i.e the fire). If someone is being stabbed to death, can't you see the cause of their pain? (the knife). Sure, let's take your theory of origin.

I believe we came from somewhere, but where? If I accept *your* version of origin, we came from God. But why must we have an origin when God *doesn't*? Just because there are no answers to the origin question doesn't mean God is inherently eternal and our Almighty Creator. I hope not to sound aggressive, but if you expect me to completely drop my longing for answers, you're essentially asking me to forsake logic and reason, curiousity and a lust for knowledge.

Sorry, but that's not happening. And my questions aren't wrong. Your theory is.

[JuniperWoolf]

My concept of god(s) = the subject of a lot of really neat, well-written, epic stories. I don't care what atheists say, religious stories are frickin' cool. The bible was a GOOD read, and greek mythology is wicked.

That's really my only concept of God. I'm neither religious nor an atheist. Believing in anything without proof is silly (and every single atheist that I know including my mate insists that atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. I think that people DO have faith in atheism and there's no point in arguing about it AGAIN). I'm pretty sure that we as a species understand basically nothing about how the universe works. To speculate is pretty arrogant, and any ideas are bound to be incorrect (not on everything, eg. we have a pretty good concept of how the reproductive system works, or how a neuron fires, but figuring out about how life originated? That's probably not going to happen).

[B-Mental]

God is such a mystery until you have faith, all and or anything is possible and faith is the key. When it comes to defining the unity of God with everything, those without faith ask for examples. God is a journey that your soul strives for, or not. God cares not about our definitions, it is and always will be. I like to think that God is the union of souls departed with nature, and the cosmic blend of love, mercy, and respect.

[PierreGringoire]

I will give my concept of "god" (I appreciate your posts in this thread Blaze)

Assuming that I indulge the side of me that believes there is a god without quesiton.

God is the fabric of this world (as you point out in many different ways, Blaze). I believe everything in the same way you said it. Hopefully, I can add more. God is a planner. He makes budgets, but sometimes things don't go as planned since we have free will.

He remakes budgets, recycles people that were on one path that wasn't working, and uses them for another. He is the ultimate computer system if you will. But unlike any other computer system out there-- he is organic. (I am tempted to call him a cyborg :) for laughs )

When I say organic-- I mean emotional. And his ring is always fading in our ears. And we can match our ring with "his" if we are aware enough.

That is the best I got. Unfortunately :(

[Miss Juventus]

DanielBeniot..


Okay, in all seriousness now, this concept of 'orgin' is an old and original one (excuse the phonetic irony ). It dates far far back and was in fact one of the prime arguments Aristotle used in theorizing that the universe was ageless.
I unfortunately, dont care about what did philosophers say, even if thay were students for a great philosopher, and teachers for a great king, as Aristotle. All that theories, ideas philosophies are changing with every new invention, with every new philosopher.. I have my own.




The problem is not the infinite regress found in the chicken or the egg question, but that these word games have no basis in reality. We never percieve an orgin, we merely make connections. Things happen according to the laws of physics, but how does that imply that there's a causal orgin? Putting aside the discoveries in quantum theory.
No, I disagree completely.. Firstly, It is not just a words game. It is a frequently question. Secondly, absolutely I never perceive the orgin of chickens, but I believe that there is a one.. There is an orgin for chickens.
Because, I will be shocked if I suddenly saw a hen in the left hand of a magician in around, just after seconds that it was not there.. cause I cant make a connection for it's orgin.. like where did it come from? please Mom tell me how?




Now let's go into Derridean discourse: Let's say that God is the origin of this structure we call the universe. God is the center and origin of the totality. He is the governing element of the structure and is above all other things, and thus has no other equilvelent. He is the center of the structure, and yet he is independent of the structure (for to be part of the structure would make him adherent to the structure, and thus not all-ruling). God is the center and yet not part of the totality, i.e. the structure. And thus the center is outside of the structure; the center is not a center, and the structure is not a structure (without any sort of center, a structure is chaotic).
(Note: We can replace the deconstructivist jargon "center" with "orgin" and it would still apply to the same thing.)
I got lost here :confused:! Let's take Da vinci as an example.. Da vinci made The MonaLiza, The Last Dinner and Palazzo Vecchio. Okay, he is the orgin of all these Works.. All of them back to him, thus make him doesn't adherent to them.. meke you not mention Da Vinci himself when you are mentioning his works. Derrida forgot to expalin that for you.. How to make things without being adherent to them.. How to differentiate between the Center and the Orgin.




That's a matter of interpretation. As a believer, you have God as the ultimate signifier. You, like everyone else, create a map of things in your head and have them all point to an orgin, merely as a matter of coherence. But in fact, these words are not all pointing to an orgin and are merely pointing to other things, signified to the signified, and so on and on, for then for there to be a final signifier would have to have it apply to a semantic choice in order for it to have any meaning.

In the end all of our infinite regresses of logic merely refer back to our words.
And who said that I pointed to the orgin here? No, I just explained how to beleive on somethng without seeing it.. simply.




The genes question is merely a matter of biology, which I think you will find quite interesting upon studying the workings of evolution.

Many of us look at things in terms of a creation because we relate it to our everyday life. We assume that since their was a creator to a painting, that there must've been a creator to everything, which is a bit ridiculous because of the fact that the painter didn't really create anything in the first place. He merely just mixed a bunch of materials together until it came out appearing as something coherent. Creation as it is usually used as a word, could really be considered creating coherence, as oppose to creating things.
So why do people keep saying that the Last dinner painting back to Da vinci? What should we say, it painted itself by itself for example? I think that you mixed things togather... If I asked you who did make The Last Dinner painting, I will expect you to say Da Vinci.. and if I asked you who did make the colors that Da vinci mixed.. you may search for an old Italian colors factory..


Da vinci made The Last Dinner painiting.. not the colors and the board.
God made human.. who make your Mountain Dew.. That's it ..in my modest view:)


So, if I'm not mistaken, you are saying the belief in God is plausible because there are no answers to my questions. In essence, because I cannot answer my questions, I just have to accept God as truth? Really?

You say that I cannot see pain, which is true; however, (to use your word) you can, in most scenarios, see the ORIGIN of the pain. If someone is on fire, can't you see the cause of their pain (i.e the fire). If someone is being stabbed to death, can't you see the cause of their pain? (the knife). Sure, let's take your theory of origin.

I believe we came from somewhere, but where? If I accept *your* version of origin, we came from God. But why must we have an origin when God *doesn't*? Just because there are no answers to the origin question doesn't mean God is inherently eternal and our Almighty Creator. I hope not to sound aggressive, but if you expect me to completely drop my longing for answers, you're essentially asking me to forsake logic and reason, curiousity and a lust for knowledge.

Sorry, but that's not happening. And my questions aren't wrong. Your theory is.

No No.. I didnt say that.. I didnt say that if you have no answers for something you asked about, you should believe on something else related.. somthing else you even can't make it sense to understand.

What did I explain.. that you will have no answers if you ask questions like "what is the orgin of the orgin?" " What is before the begining?" " Why do the orgin has no orgin?".
So what do you expect to hear.. an answer? Answer for what was before the begining?! I dont think so, and until now.. there is nobody answered this question.

Here.. I don't say: Hey let's believe on God because there is no answer for our questions. No! I said that, the mean of the "Begining" word, the "first time" word and the "orgin" word, make us beleive on them.. believe that there is nothing before them.. thus believe on God.

What did I say that if you ask a child, What did happen before the first episode of Grendaizer.. you will hear nothing.. not because he doesn't know what happened.. no, because your question is wrong. The begining means there is nothing before it.
Then.. aske him what did happen in the first episode.. he will answer simply.

[IceM]

So why do you believe on pain and dont believe on God?






What did I explain.. that you will have no answers if you ask questions like "what is the orgin of the orgin?" " What is before the begining?" " Why do the orgin has no orgin?".
So what do you expect to hear.. an answer? Answer for what was before the begining?! I dont think so, and until now.. there is nobody answered this question.

Here.. I don't say: Hey let's believe on God because there is no answer for our questions. No! I said that, the mean of the "Begining" word, the "first time" word and the "orgin" word, make us beleive on them.. believe that there is nothing before them.. thus believe on God.



Note the olive colored text. Why do I believe in pain but not God?

You can see pain. I said this last time: if someone is on fire, you can see the cause of their pain. If you are at your best friend's funeral and he is crying, you can see the cause of his pain (the dead body). You CAN see pain; you can't see the impulse that causes you to recognize pain. So, the whole "believe because you can't see it" theory in your first post (from the parts I left out) loses its merit.

Notice the dark orange text, most specifically the last 3 sentences. So what if nobody has ever answered that question? I'm sure nobody knew how to make a fire until somebody figured it out. I'm sure nobody knew how the brain works until someone took the time to discover it's function. Surely you can't expect me to stop searching for an origin to God JUST BECAUSE nobody has ever answered it before, can you? I mean, that's all that your dark orange post is insinuating.

Blue only needs 1 sentence to respond to it.

Why can't God have an origin?

I asked that last time: I'm still waiting.

Oh, and if you're going to answer that question by saying that "God just is," or "God is all-powerful, so he can't have an origin," might as well consider that logic to be refuted also. Paintings can have an origin, but God can't; man MUST have an origin, but God can't.

Theist hypocrisy.

[DanielBenoit]

DanielBeniot..


I unfortunately, dont care about what did philosophers say, even if thay were students for a great philosopher, and teachers for a great king, as Aristotle. All that theories, ideas philosophies are changing with every new invention, with every new philosopher.. I have my own.

I wasn't being rhetorical, just stating a historical fact. All I'm saying is that this question is nothing new.



No, I disagree completely.. Firstly, It is not just a words game. It is a frequently question. Secondly, absolutely I never perceive the orgin of chickens, but I believe that there is a one.. There is an orgin for chickens.


Though this Kierkegaardian leap may be useful in existential discourse, it is utterly irrational in ontological rhetoric and is no more than a cop-out.




Because, I will be shocked if I suddenly saw a hen in the left hand of a magician in around, just after seconds that it was not there.. cause I cant make a connection for it's orgin.. like where did it come from? please Mom tell me how?

. . . . .then it must be God! no Zeus! no Mountain Dew!





I got lost here :confused:! Let's take Da vinci as an example.. Da vinci made The MonaLiza, The Last Dinner and Palazzo Vecchio. Okay, he is the orgin of all these Works.. All of them back to him, thus make him doesn't adherent to them.. meke you not mention Da Vinci himself when you are mentioning his works. Derrida forgot to expalin that for you.. How to make things without being adherent to them.. How to differentiate between the Center and the Orgin.


Okay, first of all, Derrida just didn't explain it for me as if some kind of cult leader, I'm just reiterating what I find to be the best argument against the entire system of traditional Western metaphysics.

But, but, I thought the paint was the origin. No, it was the paintbrush. No, it was the oil. :confused: If DaVinci was the all-encompassing origin of The Mona Lisa, he wouldn't have needed any extentions such as paint, canvas, etc. Just as much as God wouldn't need any extentions such as magic, a meta-God, etc. The origin must be entirely self-sufficent, self-reliant, self-creative, in other words, the thing-in-itself.





And who said that I pointed to the orgin here? No, I just explained how to beleive on somethng without seeing it.. simply.


The problem's that this origin doens't exist.




So why do people keep saying that the Last dinner painting back to Da vinci? What should we say, it painted itself by itself for example? I think that you mixed things togather... If I asked you who did make The Last Dinner painting, I will expect you to say Da Vinci.. and if I asked you who did make the colors that Da vinci mixed.. you may search for an old Italian colors factory..


As I said before, the DaVinci-Mona Lisa connection is not an intrinsic thing, if a creation was to actually create something, then DaVinci would've never used any means. A creation in the way we define it is not a creation in the way that God creating the world would be, but rather just a use of resources to create patterns. The Mona Lisa is not some kind of holy thing that floated out of DaVinci's head; it is merely, in all its beauty and engimacy, is merely a manipulation of material to create a pattern so that it brings coherence and pleasure to our eyes. A painter in a sense is not a creator, but one who can judge what is coherent or not.



Da vinci made The Last Dinner painiting.. not the colors and the board.
God made human.. who make your Mountain Dew.. That's it ..in my modest view:)


And you may keep it :)

[Miss Juventus]

IceM.

No! You should be a superman to see the pain.Now, as a normal human, you can't see the pain and you will not ever see it. How could you know that the "dead body" is the reason of the pain, while you couldn't recognize that the "tears" is the result of it? result of the pain? not the pain it self! it is a far different.

Even the cut.. the cut in your hand is not the pain it self.. no! It is also the cause of your internal pain.. What is the knife? it is the cause of the cut.. The pain is feeling, no body can see the feeling..



Surely you can't expect me to stop searching for an origin to God JUST BECAUSE nobody has ever answered it before, can you ?

No I can't.. Just Keep searching :) and when you, or any other scientist have an answer for that just tell me.. After all of that, tell me also when they had told you the answer, if you stopped asking for the orgin of the orgin of God.. Because I will not spend my life in asking and asking and asking for no end!



Why can't God have an origin?
Tell me before that, what does the "orgin" mean in your language!

[PeterL]

Which God? They are all different.

[Miss Juventus]

DanielBenoit


I wasn't being rhetorical, just stating a historical fact. All I'm saying is that this question is nothing new.
Ok.. Thanks for providing information :)



Though this Kierkegaardian leap may be useful in existential discourse, it is utterly irrational in ontological rhetoric and is no more than a cop-out.
and thanks for the assessments..and thanks for Kierkegaard himself!



then it must be God! no Zeus! no Mountain Dew!
No a Trick!



But, but, I thought the paint was the origin. No, it was the paintbrush. No, it was the oil. If DaVinci was the all-encompassing origin of The Mona Lisa, he wouldn't have needed any extentions such as paint, canvas, etc. Just as much as God wouldn't need any extentions such as magic, a meta-God, etc. The origin must be entirely self-sufficent, self-reliant, self-creative, in other words, the thing-in-itself.
Okay.. you are right here completely. Da vinci have needed other things to make HIS Last dinner, But I gave that example to tell you how to make things without being adherent to them.. not to explain what the "independent" word means to a foreign student.. because you have said this:


(for to be part of the structure would make him adherent to the structure, and thus not all-ruling).

.


The Mona Lisa is not some kind of holy thing that floated out of DaVinci's head; it is merely, in all its beauty and engimacy, is merely a manipulation of material to create a pattern so that it brings coherence and pleasure to our eyes. A painter in a sense is not a creator, but one who can judge what is coherent or not.
No.. if it is one of your works, then you had absolutely created it!.. or let's say you had made it.. It makes more sense now.

[NikolaiI]

God is the source of everything. God is Krishna, God is Buddha, God is Pure Land. God is all that is holy and true.

People say, "Why doesn't God appear to me this instant, and accede my demands, punish me for my blasphemy, and prove His existence?" But this is a wrong attitude. We must be qualified to see God. Even in this world, if we want to speak to the President, we are not able to unless we are qualified. If I call the White House and demand to speak to him, requesting him to prove his existence to me, I would be disregarded. So why should God, who is the Lord of the Universe, heed all my demands?

Still, we shouldn't speak of God or the soul if we haven't experienced them. Only a few times in my life have I experienced revelation of divine consciousness, and yet those I know were the only real moments of my existence. God is Buddha, enthroned on a Lotus, surrounded by limitless pure love. The source of everything is this, and it is infinite. Since the source of everything is this, it is within everything, even every cell - so within every cell is infinite space, infinite Pure Lands, and the very source of those Pure Lands is a Lotus, and the Lotus may be said be emanating from God. The nature of this - God, Krishna, Buddha - is infinite bliss, peace and knowledge. It is beyond all description, it is not found in logical arguments. Another way it may be understood is simply "Love," or "Pure Love," or "Spirit."

[IceM]

IceM.

No! You should be a superman to see the pain.Now, as a normal human, you can't see the pain and you will not ever see it. How could you know that the "dead body" is the reason of the pain, while you couldn't recognize that the "tears" is the result of it? result of the pain? not the pain it self! it is a far different.

Even the cut.. the cut in your hand is not the pain it self.. no! It is also the cause of your internal pain.. What is the knife? it is the cause of the cut.. The pain is feeling, no body can see the feeling..
Tell me before that, what does the "orgin" mean in your language!


The knife causes the cut. The cut is painful. The knife inflicts pain. You can see what causes the pain. You can see the result of the pain. You can see the reaction to the pain. You can see the pain. Do I really have to state that any more clearly?

With the dead body metaphor, the tears signify the pain. You see the dead body. You see the reason for the tears. You see the reaction to the reason. You see the pain. What are you failing to undrestand here?

Origin: beginning: the place where something begins, where it springs into being; "the Italian beginning of the Renaissance"; "Jupiter was the origin of. Courtesy of: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I ask you again. Why can't God have an origin? You've been dodging that question since I asked it.

P.S. Orgin isn't a word. It's origin.

[Banmark]

God is one of those words that has been used to describe too many things. If I met someone who claimed to be God I wouldn't be able to prove him wrong.

So is God separate? Yes. Is he in all of us? Yes. Is he...? Yes, according to someone.

What I think doesn't matter, only what `is` matters.

That is my concept of God

Yes, I agree with u
_________________
koozies | (www.drinkoutloud.com)great koozies (www.kustomkoozies.com) | design koozies online (www.kustomkooziesonline.com)

[My name is red]

My concept of god is logic

[Miss Juventus]

IceM.. Nooo! You are completely wrong!
Yes, I can see the cause of the pain..the result, or let's say the reaction of it..but not the pain itself..no! Abseolutly no!

The pain is FEELING. Nobody can see the feeling.. because it is in your heart..you FEEL it, not SEE it! There is a big different.
If you don't trust me, you can ask somebody else :)


Origin: beginning
....and when you hear the word of "begining" I think the normal question_if there is a one_ is: "What is after the begining" Not "What was before the begining".
Why? because the begining word means, that there is nothing before it..and I have been told you.. if I, for example, told you what is the origin of God, you will keep asking about the origin of that origin.. because you don't understand the Origin and the Begining words meaning..Not because there is nobody until now have an answer for it.. no, but because some people_including you_ still don't believe that God is before everything in the world..



I ask you again. Why can't God have an origin? You've been dodging that question since I asked it
No.. I have not been dodging. It is not one of my habits.. I answered you .. Go and have a look :)

P.S: Thank you :)

[IceM]

What did I explain.. that you will have no answers if you ask questions like "what is the orgin of the orgin?" " What is before the begining?" " Why do the orgin has no orgin?".
So what do you expect to hear.. an answer? Answer for what was before the begining?! I dont think so, and until now.. there is nobody answered this question.

Here.. I don't say: Hey let's believe on God because there is no answer for our questions. No! I said that, the mean of the "Begining" word, the "first time" word and the "orgin" word, make us beleive on them.. believe that there is nothing before them.. thus believe on God.


Why must Man have an origin but God cannot? You accept that God IS the origin without providing any reasoning as to how he cannot be.


Because of that and to be comfortable.. you should believe on ORGIN, and that orgin who is before every thing in the world is GOD.


Once again, why can't God have an origin. Why is He the beginning? Why can't He have a beginning? Because it defies YOUR theist logic? Or because you see the continual onslaught of questions as too tiresome of think of and choose to use God as your only response?


IceM.

After all of that, tell me also when they had told you the answer, if you stopped asking for the orgin of the orgin of God.. Because I will not spend my life in asking and asking and asking for no end!



So you're content to just accept God as an answer without even bothering to think of the question? Humankind HAS to have an origin, but God cannot. Why?

Instead of bothering to answer the question with any attempt of logic, you keep saying I do not comprehend the mere meanings of origin and beginning. Instead of even attempting to postulate ANY form of logical response, you're going to continue reiterating that I cannot comprehend definitions to basic words. I pity you.

This topic is no longer worth discussing. As long as you're continuing to sidestep why God has no origin, why he is the beginning of creation and the "eternal being" while Man MUST have an origin, what's the point of bickering about concrete definitions? Until you actually confront my questions with a logical, reasonable, or even relevant answer, this discussion is over.

[Miss Juventus]

^

Ya.. the discussion is over.. Not because I have not been answered you, No! I did؛


Here.. I don't say: Hey let's believe on God because there is no answer for our questions. No! I said that, the mean of the "Begining" word, the "first time" word and the "orgin" word, make us beleive on them.. believe that there is nothing before them.. thus believe on God.


The begining means there is nothing before it.


and when you hear the word of "begining" I think the normal question_if there is a one_ is: "What is after the begining" Not "What was before the begining".
Why? because the begining word means, that there is nothing before it..and I have been told you.. if I, for example, told you what is the origin of God, you will keep asking about the origin of that origin.. because you don't understand the Origin and the Begining words meaning..Not because there is nobody until now have an answer for it.. no, but because some people_including you_ still don't believe that God is before everything in the world..


All of these are answers! Why can't God have an origin? because God himself is the origin!

The discussion is over absolutely, because you don't want to satisfy or maybe because you have not understood..! Don't say because I have not answered you!

[DanielBenoit]

God is the source of everything. God is Krishna, God is Buddha, God is Pure Land. God is all that is holy and true.

People say, "Why doesn't God appear to me this instant, and accede my demands, punish me for my blasphemy, and prove His existence?" But this is a wrong attitude. We must be qualified to see God. Even in this world, if we want to speak to the President, we are not able to unless we are qualified. If I call the White House and demand to speak to him, requesting him to prove his existence to me, I would be disregarded. So why should God, who is the Lord of the Universe, heed all my demands?

But we see the President every day on the news. We know he exists through empirical cognition.

That said, the "invisible God" argument that atheists use is quite silly really because there are many things that we take for granted in everyday speech that are nothing more than floating abstractions.



Still, we shouldn't speak of God or the soul if we haven't experienced them. Only a few times in my life have I experienced revelation of divine consciousness, and yet those I know were the only real moments of my existence. God is Buddha, enthroned on a Lotus, surrounded by limitless pure love. The source of everything is this, and it is infinite. Since the source of everything is this, it is within everything, even every cell - so within every cell is infinite space, infinite Pure Lands, and the very source of those Pure Lands is a Lotus, and the Lotus may be said be emanating from God. The nature of this - God, Krishna, Buddha - is infinite bliss, peace and knowledge. It is beyond all description, it is not found in logical arguments. Another way it may be understood is simply "Love," or "Pure Love," or "Spirit."

You know, I probably understand you more than any of the other religous members here because I have experienced this absolute bliss and joy that you speak of through the process of meditation. I have even considered becoming a Buhddist. But to surrender myself to an entire system is too hard for me, for I believe in faith, I have none because I can't help but stand outside the system and look in, rather than be in it.

We all have faith in one way or another, though not entirely in a religous sense.



All of these are answers! Why can't God have an origin? because God himself is the origin!


The only problem is (as I argued above) is that there is no origin. Our concept of God rests on a word, words refer to each other endlessly without any origin of meaning whatsoever. We hardly ever realize that almost the entire basis of our reality rests on words.

[NikolaiI]

The generally idea which is becoming popular among society, which is trending towards atheism, is this; that God must do everything. God must absolutely force me to believe in Him, otherwise I won't. Well, actually God is doing everything, proving absolutely everything for you, but He won't force you.

True humility is knowing we are absolutely dependent on God. We like to say we are independent, we like our independence. But we are not independent in the slightest - we are dependent upon many things, the most immediate of which are air, water, food, and everything in a more extended way too. And all of those things are provided by the Supreme Lord, in perfect quantity for every living entity. God provides for the birds and the animals, for an elephant who requires so much food, so why do we think God would not provide for us? He does, but still we refuse to acknowledge Him.

[IceM]

Updating my comments to say that I am now an evangelical Christian despite having been an atheist so long ago. I now find hope in Jesus Christ, the Lord of Creation.