What or Who is God?

Correct. God owns you

err which one? the Christian God, the Islamic God? I wish it/him/she would give me a sign

don’t stare at me like that. lol

Isn’t it funny how we sometimes say “your God” if you can own a God, then where would I get one? lol

well gotta go. it’s late see u laterzzzz.

god Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.
God

• A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
• The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
• A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
• An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
• One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
• A very handsome man.
• A powerful ruler or despot.

take your pick.

funny that is dosen’t seem to mention God being a creator, but basicly a super-human being that for some reason is great and should be praised.
I pick none of the above how about you?

God if you read my earlier post is a it who’s own existance created the universe by being a paradox. It can exist but he can not be, the only thing it could do was exist anything else would put everything in check.

Beats me.

An old girlfriend of mine once said, “God is an idea that keeps the truth alive for the spiritually unborn.”

She was a helluva lot smater than I am.

To me, God is the next guy I see in the street.

Louise stated:

Frozenviolet responded to Louise:

Frozenviolet, did you read Louises post entirely? Check out the word ‘originator’ followed by “…of the universe.” in Louises post.

yah I kinda cought onto my mistake, you can hit me over the head with a metal spoon now, might get me ol’ gray matter workn’ again…

I didn’t mean to come across in a harsh way, although I guess it could be taken that way quite easily. I will try to write my posts a little more gentally next time.

Everybody thought i was mean cause i was using this when i was meaning so everybody thought i stayed mad. luckily they still liked me enough to message me.

Im not a guy im a happy go lucky guy.

To me, God is whatever/whomever created the concept of the four-dimentional universe, and set it into motion. The Origin. That thing/being is God to me whether it is all-powerful or not, whether it is all-benevolent or not, and whether or not it is even aware of our existance. My God may have absolutly nothing set up for us in the matter of an afterlife. I must admit that my definition of a God would bring little comfort to most people, but it does have a plus in the fact that it does for certain exist. (unless you’re a nihilist, but screw you nihilists, you’re no fun )

Yes, if the nihilists are right, then screw it all, man. In fact I think that’s their motto, “Screw it all, man”…But seriously, if I ask, “What is the origin of the universe?” No matter what you say, it qualifies under my admitedly ambiguous definition. Even if you say, “The universe has always been” it is still compatable with my creator. This can be explained as follows:

Suppose you were to name a tree, “A”. It has seeds, and spawns a new tree, “1A”. 1A eventually has seeds and spawns, “2A”. And so on. But when you go to make a chronology of them, you realize that “A” was once a seed as well, so you name the tree that spawned it, “-1A”, and the tree before that one, “-2A”. And so on. And eventually you have the idea that maybe there was no first tree, that maybe it just goes on and on in both directions like this:
…-3A, -2A, -1A, A, 1A, 2A, 3A…

So you say, “If there’s always been trees, then nobody could have created them.” But this isn’t true. What is being described here is a “causality chain”. That is, cause and effect, and effect and effect. And it is possible that it goes on forever in both directions. But that wouldn’t rule out the existence an origin for that chain, if the origin existed outside of time.
{…-3A, -2A, -1A, A, 1A, 2A, 3A…} - God

The above would depect: God, an entity that exists outside of time and it’s cause and effect restrictions, spawns a causality chain that exists within time, and extends to infinity in both directions.

Ta-da! God and infinite causality can fit in the same room.

The only way my God couldn’t exist is if you adopt this equation:
{nothing} - Nobody

Get your hands off me you damn dirty nihilists…

“God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.”
Psalm 46:1

Asok_green

There is a simple problem with your theory that makes it invalid. Let me explain. You suggest that if the origin of the series of cause and effect were outside the boundaries of time, then that series could be infinite. The problem is that infinity can not be boundaried by anything, even time. Simply put, there can only be one being with infinite status. All else falls within the status of being finite. Make sense?

Take Parmenides original debate of Pluralism vs. Monism, which was later further developed by Thomas Aquinas. There are only two possibilities, either a monistic universe or a pluralistic universe. The monistic universe defines the universe as being infinite and the pluralistic universe defines the universe as being finite, with an infinite form of being outside of it boundaries. These boundaries are usually suggested as the laws of nature.

A soveriegn monotheistic god can only be defined in a pluralistic description of the universe. We commonly find the concept of pantheism or atheism in a monistic universe.

Back to your theory. Think about it this way. If God is the origin of the infinite causal series, who is the originator of God? If God has no origin then is he infinite as well? Can there be two infinity’s? They would converge at some point. Therefore, infinity can have no origin and can only be alone in it’s existence. It’s got to be one or the other: God or the universe, Monism or Pluralism.

No problem though, I think you were just misconstruing the definition of infinity. I also wanted to ask you what you mean by:

I realize that you wrote this a month ago, but I would still love to hear your feedback.

Original Question:
“What or who is God?”

Since I have already answered to this question many times in many other threads, I will dodge the question and say that I think the term ‘God’ has taken up every possible thing on our planet. God has been a bush, an animal, a person, a star, etc, etc. So it seems that God can be anything you imagine God to be, this goes along well with those who believe that God is everything, everything is a part of God, therefore you conceiving God to be, you pet rabbit for instance is atleast somewhat correct.

But the original question has a flaw of limiting God. Since the ‘what’ suggests that God is a thing. Which also suggests that there are other things like it. The ‘who’ suggests that God is an entity, which again suggests that God is somehow outside of our universe. But if God is limited to being outside of that which God creates then God cannot be all powerful. I guess the conception of ‘God’ leaves no way for us to question or to articulate God’s existence, for any which way we try to articulate Gods existence we limit Gods existence with the very words we use to try to unlimit God.

Has anyone ever wondered whether it actually makes a difference if there is a God or not? Why bother with such a question? If there is a God, it shouldn’t change how you live your life, the same goes for, if there isn’t a God. So whether there is a God or not, live your life to it fullest potential, too many people are more susceptible in believing in heroes, idols, rock stars, and God; that they forget to believe in themselves. So believe in yourselves. Temet Nosce (latin) - “Know thyself”

When you choose a path that you believe to be right, when everything in your mind and body tells you to do this, despite what others tell you; do it. Tentanda Via (latin) - “The way must be tried” this is also coincidentally the modo of the university I attend.

What’s your take?

To me, every God (including my own) is simply the easy answer to the questions which philosophers have been asking ever since human beings realised themselves. These are questions to which none of us can ever know the answer, because we are basically very primitive life-forms with an infintessimally small proportion of the mental capacity needed to even start to form plausible theories about creation, etc.

My ‘God’ (although I don’t call it that) is not a person, lifeform or being of any sort, it is literally just the answer to those questions, which I have no other way of expressing.
People of all religions have this idea, although most of them take the next step, which is to personify their ‘God’ and form conclusions about ‘Him’ and tell stories about ‘Him’. This is religion as we know it - without any proof or evidence whatsoever. I do not believe this is true ‘God’.

Starchild stated:

I’m so glad you said this, I completely agree. But within this is the whole problem. First we didn’t know why thunder happened, or why fire kept changing its form; so we said it was God. But then science explained why there is thunder and why fire changes its form. We didn’t understand why certain things, that appeared to be miracles, were happening; so we said it was God. Then miracle mongers, magicians, and scientists came by and explained why and how. We didn’t understand how things came to be, ie. why is a rock smaller or bigger than the next within a river?, and so we said it was God. But today we know that erosion, gravity, the elements all play a role in forming all things in our environment. Moreover, today we have come to the point where we are pretty certain of the occurence of the universe through the big bang theory. But what caused the big bang? To no surprise, many are saying God. But scientists (astro-physicists) are working hard on what are presently controversial theories of open and closed universes, folding and unfolding, etc. As you said before, God is easy answer to question being asked, but more importantly not being answered easily. God is but an inadequacy, a defence mechanism for our ego to believe that, that which it doesn’t understand it’s not suppose to understand because it can’t, because its God. We don’t like to admit we don’t know something. Remind you of many people? I know it reminds me of many people in my life.

Starchild stated:

I disagree completely. For you to say that none of us can EVER know the answer, is presumptuous. You are raising yourself above the rest without realizing it. To say that we can never know, means YOU know that we can never know. But you are driving yourself to the same corner of God. Furthermore, what makes you think we are VERY PRIMITIVE LIFE-FORMS? What other life-forms are you comparing us to? And where did you get the idea that we have an infinitessimally small proportion of the mental capacity needed to even start to form plausible theories about creation? Who mental capacity are you comparing ours to? And more importantly, who bestowed the great knowledge upon you that allows you to suggest that our math, our science, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc…isn’t a PLAUSIBLE theory? It’s true that they may not be correct, but many theories are quite plausible.

Starchild stated:

God is the answer to your questions, you say. Okay, my pet gold fish is the answer to my questions. Wanna argue? Is there anything you can argue against me? The argument I can hold up using my gold fish as the answer will carry the same, if not greater weight to any answers of God you may use. Philosophy is the question, once an answer pops out, so does a science. Physiology popped out of philosophy. Philosophy and physiology together popped out psychology. So what it sounds like you are saying, is that science is your God.

What’s your take?

Don’t think I’m trying to be presumptious… I didn’t mean to offend anyone, but it’s just my opinion…

When I said there are questions to which none of us can ever know the answer, I just meant that if you think about some things such as the concept of infinity, or the concept of creation (Such as the Big Bang theory) you don’t actually understand how it works, you just understand what people say about it. That’s what I meant. I just don’t think that human beings are evolved enough to possibly start to understand the actual mechanisms behind the solutions they are suggesting. Human senses are essentially very primitive, very inefficient ways of perceiving the world, in my opinion.

I’m sorry… I don’t know what to say to some of your opinions… I really didn’t mean to offend anyone, but I’m a whole lot younger than you and a whole lot less educated and intelligent, so my eloquence probably didn’t allow me to say what I was trying to say, if you get my meaning. I’ve never studied philosophy at all, so a lot of your conclusions are very hard for me to comprehend… I’m sorry…

Starchild,
I didn’t mean to come across that way , but I know I have a tendency to do that sometimes, so I too am sorry . Please don’t take the things i say personally, the reason I told you that you were holding yourself higher than the rest without even knowing it is because I wanted to make you realize the error in your logic, not because I wanted to suggest that you are egotistical; that’s why I said ‘without knowing it’. Many people do what you did, even I do sometimes. It’s perfectly fine if you are uneducated in the realm of philosophy, hopefully if you spend enough time here you may leave with some kind of knowledge of philosophy . If you have any questions, feel free to ask . I will try to word my arguments a little differently next time , a little more passively, for I realize how my words sound sometimes .

Cordially,
~Magius

Thanks Magius
The reason I said what I said is that sometimes my incoherent adolescent babblings explode into a mess of ignorance and despondency. I should really stop trying to put that mess down in words…

I agree with starchild. Man has a need to understand his environment. When he cannot, there is a natural tendency to fill his mental gaps with God. The more natural explanation we uncover for things, the further we push God aside. There is still much we don’t understand about the universe so I imagine there is still room for a concept og Gos to fill out intellectual gaps. I suspect there always will be. It seems unlikely man has the capacity to fully understand the universe.