Define god (s)

[notself]

I am starting this thread at the request of Dagda who states that he will define his god including all of the attributes of this god.  Dagda will also disclose what this god does all day and whether this god requires belief in this god's existence.

So far Dagda has avoided defining his god by bring the subject up and then not addressing it.  The following is from his posts on "The God Debate" thread the bold is mine.

I find that the definition of God is central to the debate over His existence (what are we arguing about?) but it seems to be ignored almost completely. For instance, if we define God as all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then we should all be atheists as no such being can possibly exist (omnipotence as most people understand it is a contradiction, and there is the problem of evil to consider). However, if we define God in different manner (such as the feminist critique or mystical interpretation) then we may get into a proper discussion

The post ends here without a definition.

I disagree. As an atheist you define yourself as not believing in God, but if you do not know what God is then how can you not believe in God? A personal example would be that I do not know all that much about Jainism therefore it would be silly of me to say I do not believe in Jainism because for all I know they could be preaching some decent and logical theories. In the same vain I cannot say I agree with Jainism because I simply don’t know if I do. In the same way you could legitimately take an agnostic stance on the grounds that you simply do not know what a ‘God’ would be, it is hard to see how an atheistically stance becomes justifiable if you attain that you don’t know what you don’t believe in (like me saying Jainism is stupid).

Still no definition of what Dagda means by god.

In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

Dagda demands a definition of god by atheists but again fails to provide his definition.  In my next post I will ask Dagda to define god. by answering some questions..

[notself]

Dagda, here are my questions.  Please answer each one but feel free to tell us more about your god and her attributes.


What or who is your god? Is your god a spirit or some sort of force like gravity?

Is your god the source of the universe, a creator?

Does your god require worship? If so why?

Has your god inspired or directly written any sacred instructions for you? If so what are those instructions?

How are those instructions different from moral or ethical codes of other religions or philosophies?

Does your god have to be obeyed? If so why? What happens if she is not obeyed?

What does god do for a job? Does she interact in any way with the universe?

If your definition of your god disagrees with the Nicene Creed, why do you call yourself a Christian? Here is a link to the Nicene Creed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_ve ... .28ELLC.29

I hope you will answer these questions because by doing so, I think all discussions will be more on point.

[Dagda]

I am going to number your questions so I don’t have to keep quoting the post above.

1)   As I have said many times before, God is a kind of collective consciousness. The bond or link which holds the Universe together. The originator of natural and moral laws. All round good egg.
2)   I prefer intelligent causation of the Universe to creator as it has less baggage, but I do think God is the creator of form and mind.
3)   Require? No.
4)   To paraphrase Bacon, there are two sacred scriptures; the Bible and nature. From these two scriptures we can formulate all moral and philosophical ideas; the good life essentially. Of course the Bible is my cultural example; if I were Muslim the Koran could replace the first scripture if I so desired it.
5)   See above
6)   Of course God has to be obeyed on certain levels. What happens if you try and oppose these commands? You most likely die. Not in a fire and brimstone way mind, more of a opposing the law of Gravity kind of way-it can’t be done.
7)   Surely that is covered in 1)?

The Nicene Creed is not the unalterable rock on which Christianity rests. There are a few Christian sect who do not embrace the decisions of the Nicene Creed and there were Christians before the Council met.

I am aware the above answer is rather short and lazily presented, but I have not got much spare time in March-May. Hope this is sufficient.

[pinkocommie]

I am going to number your questions so I don’t have to keep quoting the post above.

1)   As I have said many times before, God is a kind of collective consciousness. The bond or link which holds the Universe together. The originator of natural and moral laws. All round good egg.
2)   I prefer intelligent causation of the Universe to creator as it has less baggage, but I do think God is the creator of form and mind.
3)   Require? No.
4)   To paraphrase Bacon, there are two sacred scriptures; the Bible and nature. From these two scriptures we can formulate all moral and philosophical ideas; the good life essentially. Of course the Bible is my cultural example; if I were Muslim the Koran could replace the first scripture if I so desired it.
5)   See above
6)   Of course God has to be obeyed on certain levels. What happens if you try and oppose these commands? You most likely die. Not in a fire and brimstone way mind, more of a opposing the law of Gravity kind of way-it can’t be done.
7)   Surely that is covered in 1)?

The Nicene Creed is not the unalterable rock on which Christianity rests. There are a few Christian sect who do not embrace the decisions of the Nicene Creed and there were Christians before the Council met.

I am aware the above answer is rather short and lazily presented, but I have not got much spare time in March-May. Hope this is sufficient.

If God is a 'collective consciousness' how could god also be a creator?  #1 and 2 are completely circular logic.  God is a collective consciousness, but God also created form and mind?  So...what 'collective consciousness' created God?  What you seem to be saying here is that God created the mind and minds created God.  That doesn't work.

Also, could you please go into more detail about your response to #3?  Your answer seems purposefully obtuse, but I may just be incorrigibly curious.  

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

If the supposedly intelligently-designed universe necessarily requires an intelligent creator, then the next question is very obvious.

Who created god?

And who created the dude who created god?

And so on...

[Ellainix]

[youtube:15bie56u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo[/youtube:15bie56u]

[notself]

I am going to number your questions so I don’t have to keep quoting the post above.

1)   As I have said many times before, God is a kind of collective consciousness. The bond or link which holds the Universe together. The originator of natural and moral laws. All round good egg. So you are not in fact a Christian who believes in the god of the Nicene Creed.
2)   I prefer intelligent causation of the Universe to creator as it has less baggage, but I do think God is the creator of form and mind. Others have commented on the lack of logic of this statement.  You may wish to rephrase.
3)   Require? No. Please expand on this answer since if your god does not require worship then why do you follow the sacred texts that state that your god requires worship?
4)   To paraphrase Bacon, there are two sacred scriptures; the Bible and nature. From these two scriptures we can formulate all moral and philosophical ideas; the good life essentially. Of course the Bible is my cultural example; if I were Muslim the Koran could replace the first scripture if I so desired it. Muslims follow the Old Testament and that angry jealous god certainly requires worship
5)   See above  You limited your answer to Abrahamic religions that all follow the OT.  Why is that?
6)   Of course God has to be obeyed on certain levels. What happens if you try and oppose these commands? You most likely die. Not in a fire and brimstone way mind, more of a opposing the law of Gravity kind of way-it can’t be done. Why does your god require obedience and what are her commands that if not followed will result in my death?
7)   Surely that is covered in 1)? I think you need to expand on this answer in light of the logical flaws of answer 1./color]
Those who do not accept the Nicene Creed are not considered Christians by the majority.  Mormons are not considered Christians.  That's why Romney was beaten by Huckabee.

I am aware the above answer is rather short and lazily presented, but I have not got much spare time in March-May. Hope this is sufficient. Not Really but I will wait until you have more time to expand on your thoughts.

[hvargas]

Beleivers are not able to define that which they had not seen so they give themselves the HOPE that there exists a God who will take care of them. Faith, them becomes their pillar or their pillows. This is a way of escaping reality, the realities of this world. Nature is an extension of our existence and we are also an extension of Nature as its evolving and carrying changes. It has no Mind of its own and has no directions of its own, it just happens. We on the other hand can influence Nature and in some cases manipulted it to do our will while on the other hand we can't control an earthquake nor can a biblical God if it were to exist. Given the realities of PLANET EARTH it is illogical to think that a super-natural-being is writing our destiny/history. Faith is just a wish and hope is just a way of crying for someone to rescued you from yourself and others.

[Will]

God or gods are supernatural individuals. Everything after that is mythology, but that core description is common to all gods.

[noquarter]

God is Mystery
Unintelligible to the human mind.
It is extremely difficult to communicate and comprehend the subtle and abstract ideas which describe the Mystery.

[elliebean]

It is extremely difficult to communicate and comprehend the subtle and abstract ideas which describe the Mystery.

Well don't be afraid to try.

[noquarter]

Both Pagan and Christian of origination image God as a "Big Mind" which thinks, or imagines, or dreams the cosmos into existence.
The "Stillness" of Pure immeasurable Consciousness (Spirit) stirs to issue forth a "thought".
Consciousness is the basis for existence.
You can understand this from your own experience, because if you were not conscious, nothing would exist for you,nor would you exist for yourself.
However, the ultimate "Source" of all cannot be Consciousness, since before it thinks the first thought Consciousness must be conscious of nothing and therefore unconscious.
In other words, take away the object of Consciousness and Consciousness vanishes with it. Consciousness is always inseparable from that which it is conscious of.
This duality of Consciousness and Object is not the ultimate source, The Absolute Mystery is the ultimate source.
Since it comes before Consciousness it is not something you can be conscious of. Therefore, it is totally Unknowable.
Even using the word "God" cannot describe it because it is beyond words. But this word has been used and so has the word One and Love etc.

[Heathen's Guide]

Man, am I ever sick of the "God is that which holds the universe together" line.  Ever look at the universe?  Seen how many planets crash into each other?  Solar systems wiped out?  Super novas destroying everything then collapsing in on themselves?  Asteroids large and small crashing into the Earth?  Solar flares?

The universe is anything but orderly and controlled.  If this is the main proof of a divinity then I suggest He's really slacking off.

[elliebean]

Both Pagan and Christian of origination image God as a "Big Mind" which thinks, or imagines, or dreams the cosmos into existence.
The "Stillness" of Pure immeasurable Consciousness (Spirit) stirs to issue forth a "thought".
Consciousness is the basis for existence.
You can understand this from your own experience, because if you were not conscious, nothing would exist for you,nor would you exist for yourself.
However, the ultimate "Source" of all cannot be Consciousness, since before it thinks the first thought Consciousness must be conscious of nothing and therefore unconscious.
In other words, take away the object of Consciousness and Consciousness vanishes with it. Consciousness is always inseparable from that which it is conscious of.
This duality of Consciousness and Object is not the ultimate source, The Absolute Mystery is the ultimate source.
Since it comes before Consciousness it is not something you can be conscious of. Therefore, it is totally Unknowable.
Even using the word "God" cannot describe it because it is beyond words. But this word has been used and so has the word One and Love etc.

Thank you for expanding on your definition. I can tell you've put some thought into it; it's one of the better definitions of it's kind that I've encountered.

It appears to me that what you're putting forth is a duality of existence; on one hand there's the physical, knowable, measurable, etc., ie. 'the cosmos' (let's say, for the sake of this discussion); on the other, you have the "Absolute Mystery", "Consciousness", "Unknowable",  "ultimate source", "Big Mind", whatever you want to call it, ie. "God".

Looking at the first part of the equation, the cosmos, the part of which we can know, I have to wonder what perceptible difference there would be between that and the same cosmos existing independently, in and of itself, where consciousness is a result of biological processes, chemical reactions, etc. What changes? Is it any less beautiful, profound, meaningful, worthwhile, or desirable to those of us fortunate enough to have this one chance to experience it?

Looking at the second part of the equation, what does it add if we, we humans, are here to observe, to experience, to love, to dream, to care about the first part - that which we can know? And given that we do possess consciousness ourselves, and fulfill all the other qualities that define your deity, when you boil it down to its irreducible parts and resign it to a realm outside of what we are able to percieve, how is that distinguishable in any way from nothing?

[noquarter]

It appears to me that what you're putting forth is a duality of existence; on one hand there's the physical, knowable, measurable, etc., ie. 'the cosmos' (let's say, for the sake of this discussion); on the other, you have the "Absolute Mystery", "Consciousness", "Unknowable",  "ultimate source", "Big Mind", whatever you want to call it, ie. "God".

The Mystery is the dazzling darkness of Consciousness, conscious of nothing. To become conscious of itself it makes itself simultaneously a subject and an object.
The Mystery became manifest to itself from itself and so passed into a state of duality.
The unknowable knows itself by manifesting as the knower and the known.
The looker and the looked at.
Witness and experience.
Consciousness and psyche.
Spirit and soul.

Looking at the first part of the equation, the cosmos, the part of which we can know, I have to wonder what perceptible difference there would be between that and the same cosmos existing independently, in and of itself, where consciousness is a result of biological processes, chemical reactions, etc. What changes? Is it any less beautiful, profound, meaningful, worthwhile, or desirable to those of us fortunate enough to have this one chance to experience it?

There is no perceptible difference in the known, the difference occurs within the perceiver.
The perceiver knows himself/herself to be Mystery and not just the body and biological processes.
Knowing herself/himself to be Mystery ensures the conscious participation in the ultimate purpose.
But of course this is all only a story and is no more valid than your version.
Beauty within recognises beauty without etc.
We all have only one chance and it is Now in this moment.

Looking at the second part of the equation, what does it add if we, we humans, are here to observe, to experience, to love, to dream, to care about the first part - that which we can know? And given that we do possess consciousness ourselves, and fulfill all the other qualities that define your deity, when you boil it down to its irreducible parts and resign it to a realm outside of what we are able to percieve, how is that distinguishable in any way from nothing?

The ultimate purpose is Mystery is becoming conscious of itself through us.
Therefore, the more we become consciously aware, of our thoughts, of our actions, of our experiences, and of loves and hates, the more we can take part actively in the unfolding "drama".
I will leave you with this quote from the Gnostic Basilides:

Nothing existed. Not even nothing. The truth, naked of opinion and conceptualization, is that there was not even the One.
And when I say "there was", I don't mean that anything was.

Ps Thank you for listening to my ravings.